”As a New Yorker and first-generation American, I have the pleasure and great honor to serve as the Commissioner for International Affairs for the most global city in the world. New York City is home to the largest diplomatic community in the world – 193 Permanent Missions, 116 Consulates and the headquarters of the United Nations”-- Penny Abeywardena, Commissioner.

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Jun 25 2020 (IPS)

The recent approach of the US to the UN and its agencies has left many shaking their heads. The US, under President Roosevelt, played a seminal role in creating the UN and its key agencies after World War II and subsequently nurturing them.

But the Organization that Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once said was created not with the intention of taking mankind to heaven but to prevent it from going to hell, is today itself mired in hellish doubts about its future, particularly with the US, its physical host.

The biggest funder and the one remaining global super power, the US has been in a foul mood, pulling out of the Human Rights Council (HRC), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and ceasing cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO) while threatening funding cuts.

Despite the many criticisms leveled against it, the UN has chalked up many global successes. To begin with, despite being unable to eliminate regional conflagrations, it has, inter alia, succeeded in avoiding a global war, contributed to improving living standards and advanced the rule of law and respect for human rights.

The US for its part, a key architect of the UN, has successfully maneuvered the Organization on countless occasions to achieve its global agenda and policy goals, while maintaining a mantle of legal legitimacy and moral justification.

Following the decolonization process and the emergence of other economic and military power centres, especially China, the Organization has not always been at the beck and call of the Western alliance that has irked the West, in particular the US.

While using the UN and its agencies to castigate others, e.g., Sri Lanka, North Korea, Iran, etc over human rights issues, the US has had no qualms about using its muscle to block a recent resolution tabled by the 54 member African Group at the Human Rights Council on black deaths at the hands of the police in the US. Some of its allies, including Australia and the Netherlands supported the US, as it sought to suppress the international criticism.

This precedent set at the HRC may be difficult to manage in the future even when trying to raise genuine human rights issues. In addition, the US has studiously used its long arm to block any action by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on violations of humanitarian standards by US or Israeli military personnel while readily supporting such action in the case of African leaders.

The UN Impact Report 2016 is a cost-benefit analysis of hosting the UN in New York City. Credit: Office of the Commissioner for International Affairs, New York City

The Security Council, with US support, has referred the leaders of Libya and Sudan to the International Criminal Court. The targeting of African leaders caused some African countries to threaten to leave the ICC.

We are reminded that the US insisted on Article 98 of the Rome Statute which prohibits the ICC from requesting assistance or the surrender of a person to the ICC, if to do so would require the state to “act inconsistently” with its obligations under international law or international agreements unless the state or the third-party state waives the immunity or grants cooperation.

The U.S., having concluded over 120 bilateral immunity agreements (BIA) prohibiting such a transfer, even if the state is a member of the Rome Statute, has interpreted this article to mean that its citizens cannot be transferred to the ICC even if the state is a member of the Rome Statute.

The Bush Administration claimed that the BIAs were drafted out of concern that existing agreements—particularly the status of forces agreements or status of mission agreements (SOFAs or SOMAs)—did not sufficiently protect Americans from the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The United States, along with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute has formally has given notice of its intention not to ratify the Rome Statute while United States policy concerning the ICC has varied widely.

The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush Administration, the U.S. administration at the time of the ICC’s founding, stated that it would not join the ICC.

President Trump has said, “As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.”

In April 2019, the United States revoked the visa of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, in anticipation of a later investigation into possible war crimes committed by U.S. forces during the War in Afghanistan. The investigation was authorized in March 2020. In June 2020, Donald Trump authorized sanctions against ICC in retaliation.

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including authorization for the President to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”, and also prohibitions on the United States providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court.

The US has also denied entry visas to certain individuals to attend meetings of the world body, including senior officials from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia and Cuba, among others.

The US will be severely challenged if it seeks to justify its actions as being consistent with its obligations under the Head Quarters Agreement with the UN. (HQ Agreement, 11 UNTS 1).

With the US in the present confrontational mood, and the real risk of an intractable conflict between the UN and the US, Covid19 provides a convenient way out with which the UN will be comfortable.

The members of the world body can now opt to address the organization through video link. An entry visa will no longer be sine qua non for the purpose of entering the US and addressing the UN.

This mechanism, of course, will not sit comfortably with the New York hotels and restaurants, not to mention the hire car companies.

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
CANBERRA, Australia, Feb 4 2020 (IPS)

I love visiting Canberra in the summer. The air is clean. The water in lake Burley Griffin is crystal clear and the “go boats” merrily bob up and down with their wine sipping occupants while black swans frolic in peace.

Canberrans, who are habitually relaxed, become more friendly. Clothes worn become decidedly casual and barely adequate.

BBQs get lit and the smell of burnt meat and beer induced laughter pervade the backyards. And the “laid back like a lizard on a summer’s day” becomes more than a casual expression.

But this year was different. Summer temperatures continued to establish new records. The capital clocked up an unprecedented 43 degrees Celsius, a figure more familiar in Middle Eastern cities.

Bush fires have continued to ravage the countryside for months, destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of forest and farm land (an area bigger than Scotland has been consumed by the flames so far) and thousands of houses.

The Canberra airport was closed for an afternoon due to the threat posed by an expanding grass fire close by.

Farm animals, by the thousands, have perished in the intense heat and insurance claims are expected to exceed one billion Dollars. Millions of native animals, some endangered, have also been wiped out.

Thick smoke caused by the fires blanketed major cities, including Canberra, turning day into night in this normally sun swept land of clear skies, raising fears of possible long-term health implications.

On some days, the air quality in the capital Canberra, was considered to be the worst in any capital city in the world. Restaurants suffered seriously with customers staying at home in droves due to the thick smoke hovering over the city.

The Rose sipping sophisticates just stayed at home. Adding insult to injury, a cricket match at the Manuka Oval in the city was cancelled due to the smoke.

The simmering debate on climate change boiled over, even raising concern in Davos, but the deniers, some in high places, continued to shy away from the hard issues, issues that are likely to impact on the future of our planet.

An unbelievably ferocious hail storm seriously damaged over 30,000 cars in Canberra and resulted in a flood of insurance claims. The city, nay the country, is not equipped to deal with so many modes of transport being damaged in such a short period.

Certainly. it will not be possible to replace the damaged cars any time soon. The city may have to adopt innovative solutions to cope with this challenge, including expanding its fleet of buses and even providing free rides. Canberra, enamoured with the private car for so long, may have to get used to public buses and even using the much- denigrated light rail service.

Canberra folk might even begin to tolerate an additional few minutes in daily travel time, which is not even an issue in other capital cities! It may even be a blessing in disguise providing more texting and emailing time for the commuter without running afoul of the police.

A chorus of messages of sympathy poured in from world leaders. The world was genuinely shocked at what Australia was experiencing. But it was heartening that the country, faced with this unprecedented catastrophe, rallied quickly and methodically set about the task of containing the fires, rebuilding and restoring.

The example set to the world was truly impressive. Many good practices were actually implemented.

Much has been said about what could be done to avoid or at least minimize damage of this nature in the future, not only in Australia but elsewhere in the world where unexpectedly severe natural phenomena have begun to cause widespread disruption to the lives of ordinary people and national economies. The debate will continue.

But to facilitate discussion, and the possible adoption of appropriate measures in response in the future, we will propose some ideas gleaned from Australia’s experience and experiences elsewhere in the world. Bush fires in Australia will continue to occur in the future. Some will be more devastating than others.

Why not establish a centrally controlled dedicated fund to be accessed only in the event of a major natural disaster, especially bush fires. Other natural disasters like droughts, floods and tsunamis also can be covered.

This will be in the nature of a fund controlled by the central government and will obviate the need to scamper around to locate monetary resources after the event. In Australia and other federal jurisdictions, the primary responsibility for dealing with natural disasters will remain with the constituent states.

An interstate mechanism with individuals with experience and expertise in the field which could be activated at short notice might also help. A rich country like Australia should be capable of setting aside resources for this purpose given that natural disasters seem to be happening at all too frequent intervals.

Likewise, in Australia, the federal government could acquire a reserve of equipment, fire trucks, fixed wing aero planes, helicopters and other equipment to be kept ready to respond quickly in an emergency. The need to obtain equipment at short notice from overseas can thus be obviated.

What is more, Australia’s reserve stock of equipment could be lent to other countries in emergency situations. The occurrence of major forest fires has become a noticeable summer phenomenon in the northern hemisphere also. Tsunamis, floods, forest fires, etc occur regularly elsewhere in the region. While, it may be possible to recover the cost of making equipment available, the goodwill generated would also be considerable.

Operators of such equipment could be trained in advance. They could be members of the civil defense force who could be called up for duty at short notice. A pool of such trained personnel would be an asset readily available to be deployed to assist in any emergency situation.

In the meantime, Australia should also take a more proactive attitude towards anthropogenic climate change. There is a crescendo of voices around the world pushing governments to do more about climate change. It is an issue which has galvanized opinion in the past.

Historically, Australia played a leading role in global discussions in advocating measures to address environmental degradation, climate change, ozone depletion, hazardous waste, preservation of the Antarctica, sustainable development, etc. Australia spoke with a voice that commanded respect. It can continue to play a lead role and recover its moral authority without necessarily compromising its economic options.

In Australia, it is also vital to deal quickly with the seriously negative impact of the bush fires on tourism which has affected thousands of businesses and jobs. The tourist industry, a major employment generator, is hurting.

The images of the ferocious fires and the blanketing smoke beamed in to living rooms around the world cannot be erased overnight. A multi-media response is immediately required. It is important to acknowledge what happened honestly and highlight the proactive and businesslike manner in which the Australian people responded.

The bravery of ordinary volunteer firefighters and civilians, reflecting the nation’s “can do and we will spirit”, need to be given prominence in the media. The rapid recovery action taken, despite the odds, needs underlining.

Depending on the tourist market, people from those markets need to highlight Australia’s response in the different languages. Australia has been through much but the opportunity presented to demonstrate what it can do is significant.

As the lucky country reels under the impact of the fires, smoke, floods, heat and hail, it still remains the land of dreams for many.

*Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN and Chief of the UN Treaty Section, has previously proposed the creation of a Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) by the United Nations to deal with environmental emergencies.

The new President of Sri Lanka after he was sworn in. Credit: Sunday Times, Sri Lanka

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Nov 28 2019 (IPS)

The Economist proclaimed recently that Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the man who, as secretary of defense, presided over this horrifying episode (the final phase of Sri Lanka’s terrorist inspired internal conflict), has just been elected president of Sri Lanka.

To Sinhalese Buddhists, about 70% of the population, he is a hero. After all, the militia he destroyed was appallingly cruel and bloodthirsty and had tormented Tamils as much as, if not more than, other Sri Lankans.

It never ceases to amaze how ‘liberal’ the liberal and free press gets when describing events that it has not witnessed and individuals of whom it does not approve for reasons that cannot be explained readily or logically. This approach is not limited to one country or one person.

On 16th November, Sri Lanka’s electors (almost 84% of them exercised their franchise freely, according to all observers) democratically elected Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as president confounding many foreign analysts. His lead was almost 12 percentage points. His victory was greeted with widespread and raucous jubilation across the country, with fire crackers being lit and free milk rice being distributed.

But, disappointingly, no Western media outlet highlighted this clear victory of President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa or his forward-looking policy platform for which the majority voted. Instead a narrative based on allegations and conjecture continues to be spewed out, conveniently backed by negative western NGOs.

Almost all media outlets in the West continue to brand Rajapaksa as the “Strong man, the alleged war criminal and human rights violator.” The minorities apparently live in fear of the incoming administration.

The Economist, which is reputed for its “trustworthy” reporting of facts for over a century, referring to the end of the terrorist inspired conflict in May 2009, proclaimed grandly that “the army surrounded 100,000 civilians on a tiny sliver of beach, barely three square kilometers in size.”

Mixed in among them were a small number of separatist guerrillas, the remnants of a once-formidable force that had been battling for an independent state for the country’s Tamil minority for 26 years. The insurgents had no compunction about using innocent villagers as human shields.

The army claimed to have more scruples: it had designated the area a “no-fire zone”, where civilians could safely gather. Nonetheless, it continued to shell the beach mercilessly. The UN warned that a humanitarian disaster was unfolding and urged the government to declare a ceasefire, to no avail. In the end, resistance crumbled and the army took control.

But the beach was left piled with bodies, with more floating in the adjacent lagoon. The number of civilians who died in the final phase of the war, the UN concluded years later after a long investigation, was probably in the “tens of thousands”.

Obviously, facts were not allowed to interfere with this grand and heart wrenching narrative. The so-called spit of land, to which the LTTE had forced the civilians to flee, was about 26 square kilometers in extent. The LTTE had forced the civilians to flee to this area to be used as a human shield.

Obviously, it had been planned with devilish-cunning that this civilian shield would force the government forces to slow down their advance or, better still, goaded the international community to intervene. The bonus was that dead civilians would later provide the convenient grounds for alleging that war crimes had been committed, quite ignoring that the civilians had been forced in to that situation by the LTTE itself.

The number of civilians who were later to cross the lagoon and escape to the government side was around 297,000 – not 100,000. It was not a handful of fighters who held the “eight mile stretch of land” but over 12,000, who later surrendered to the security forces.

To this day, no one has located, despite desperate efforts, the graves of the tens of thousands of bodies that were piled up on the beach or floating in the lagoon. No burial pits have been found and the burials would have required a large force of grave diggers who were not available as most able-bodied Tamils were manning the LTTE defenses, either voluntarily or under coercion. A vast armoury of heavy and light weapons were recovered by the security forces,

Rt. Hon. Lord Naseby’s revelations in the House of Lords on 5 February, 2019, based on the reports of the UK Military Attaché in Colombo, Antony Gash, are available in the public domain. Gash had recorded in a dispatch dated 16 February 2009 concerning 400 IDPs being transferred from the fighting area to Trincomalee, “The operation was efficient and effective, but most importantly was carried out with compassion, respect and concern. I am entirely certain that this was genuine — my presence was not planned and was based on a sudden opportunity”.

Lord Naseby goes on to say, “There are many more references in the dispatches to the fact that it was never a policy of the Sri Lankan Government to kill civilians.”

He adds, “I have one other reference that I think is useful. It comes from the University Teachers for Human Rights, which is essentially a Tamil organization. It says: “From what has happened we cannot say that the purpose of bombing or shelling by the government forces was to kill civilians … ground troops took care not to harm civilians”.

He quotes another passage, “Soldiers who entered the No Fire Zone on 19th April 2009 and again on the 9th and 15th May acted with considerable credit when they reached … civilians. They took risks to protect civilians and helped … the elderly who could not walk. Those who escaped have readily acknowledged this”.

Lord Naseby estimated that the maximum number of civilians killed was probably around 6000. Not tens of thousands as proclaimed by the Economist.

There has been no military conflict in history where no civilians have suffered. This number killed in the last days of the Sri Lankan conflict may have included combatants fighting in civvies.

The figure quoted by Lord Naseby broadly confirms the internal figure compiled by the UN office in Colombo and the census figure compiled later. But what is important is Lord Naseby’s conclusion that civilians were not the target of the military operation.

Why let published facts get in the way of a heart wrenching story if it serves to vilify someone who has been slated to be tarred.

Over 55% of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the overwhelming preponderance of Muslims live in and among the majority Sinhala population. Surprisingly, no one seems to have noticed anyone in these communities living in fear as claimed by the Economist or making any effort, with bag and baggage, to move to the safety of the North or the East.

Of course, some in these communities, remembering the disturbances in Kandy during the last regime and the those in Aluthgama during the previous regime, may express reservations that please the ears of foreign journalists to juice up their stories.

But by and large, the children of the minority communities go to school every day as before, their businesses continue to flourish and their temples and mosques remain crowded.

General Sarath Fonseka (now Field Marshal) who commanded the army during the final phase of the conflict and contested the country’s presidency in 2010, in spite of being routed in the South, comfortably won all the Tamil-speaking majority electoral districts in the North and the East. Obviously, the electorate did not think of him as a killer of Tamil civilians.

Excerpt:

Working youth, otherwise without educational opportunities and from a wide range of ages, attend classes at a Social Support Center in Marka, east of Amman, Jordan. Credit: ILO/Jared J. Kohler

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Jul 11 2018 (IPS)

The World Youth Skills Day is being celebrated around the world on 15 July. This day was established on 18 December 2014 by General Assembly resolution A/RES/69/145 which was initiated by Sri Lanka. Following a lengthy consultation process, at the UN and outside, during which some delegations, including some Europeans expressed reservations, the resolution was eventually adopted unanimously. It received solid support from youth delegations from around the world.

World Youth Skills Day resolution was a landmark UN initiative and had its origins in a visionary statement made by President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka at the 2013 UNGA. The idea was subsequently championed by the Sri Lankan Minister for Youth Affairs, Dulles Alahapperuma. The Sri Lankan delegation, at the time, worked the corridors tirelessly until the scales were tipped and the adoption of the resolution became certain.

Resolution A/RES/69/145 built upon the World Programme of Action for Youth of 2007, International Youth Day in 1999 and the Colombo Declaration on Youth of 2014, which, for the first time, was adopted with the concurrence of both youth and official delegations. The Colombo Declaration on Youth required youth needs to be mainstreamed in policy making.

With an increasing number of unemployed youth worldwide, the majority of whom are in developing countries, the United Nations was activated to take action to help young people to achieve their intrinsic potential.

The World Youth Skills Day 2018, as did all youth skills days before, aims to encourage the acquisition of marketable skills and training by the young. By acquiring core professional and lifestyle skills, young people will be able to contribute to the development and growth of their own communities.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has identified marketable skills and jobs for youth as a priority. The World Youth Skills Day embodies the values of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with special emphasis on:

• SDG 4: Quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities,
• SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.an you get involved?

The youth component of the global population is increasing and a new problem of critical magnitude is slowly creeping upon policy makers, especially in developing countries. Many developing countries, consistent with their commitments under the Millennium Development Goals, some with great difficulty, have provided basic literacy and health care to their populations.

Many youth now survive in to old age. But providing meaningful employment to these millions who possess basic literacy has not been successfully addressed. The key challenge today is the paucity of marketable skills among youth. An educated and skilled workforce is also a key factor in attracting investments.

While the situation for all youth remains a challenge, the unfortunate tendency for young women in many developing countries to fall behind even further compared with their male counterparts due to the lack of employable skills and social attitudes has been highlighted frequently. Equipping young women also with employable skills will enhance the economic potential of a country dramatically.

The modern skill sets required to operate in a high tech environment, including in the areas of management, environment conservation, ICT, banking, transport, aviation, etc, are simply not being provided in quantity. The result is a burgeoning, restless and disenchanted generation that could cause social and more serious problems, instead of being an economic asset.

The world today is home to the largest generation of youth in history. 90% of young people live in developing countries. Unemployment affects more than 73 million young people around the world, with the jobless rate exceeding 50 per cent in some developing countries.

Even some developed countries, especially in the south of Europe, have not been able to avoid the youth unemployment crisis. Many are still to recover from the financial crisis and youth have been its major victims.

The world will need to add 600 million new jobs by 2026 to accommodate the flood tide of youth entering the job market. The former UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, said: “Empowering young people through skills development strengthens their capacity to help address the many challenges facing society….”.

These multiple challenges include, inter alia, alleviating poverty, eliminating injustice, conserving the environment and controlling violent conflict.

In order to focus attention on youth issues, the outgoing UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, established the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth and appointed Ahmad Alhendawi of Jordan as his first Envoy on Youth.

Today, Jayathma Wickremanayaka from Sri Lanka is the SG’s Youth Envoy. She cut her teeth in global youth affairs during the Youth Summit held in Sri Lanka in 2014.

The youth of today will be directly confronted by two major challenges. They will be required to generate wealth through employment or entrepreneurship, not only to support themselves but also a rapidly ageing older generation. Employment for the young was not a major issue in developed countries in the past, but today it is. Without income generating employment, the youth demographic will be a burden on itself and a worry for the older generation.

Industrialisation, so clearly emphasised in the SDGs, will require the new generation to be adequately prepared, as the industrialisation process will rely mostly on high tech. Some developed countries, especially the Northern Europeans, have well tested programmes for enhancing the technical skills of youth. Youth are channelled into technical studies at an early age.

There are many lessons that could be learnt from the education and training methods of these countries, especially in the context of North South Cooperation. Some developing countries have also succeeded in harnessing the youth component of their populations for economically productive endeavours. Their experiences could be shared in the context of South-South Cooperation.

The private sector, if necessary in partnership with the state, can play a vital role in disseminating advanced skills to today’s youth.

The importance of youth participation and representation in institutional political processes and policy-making has been highlighted in recent discussions. Youth need to be able to influence policy making.

For far too long policy making for youth had little or no youth input. Sri Lanka was among the first to establish a youth parliament to provide training in political activity for youth.

In certain countries, where youth disenchantment is rife, especially for economic reasons, young people have often been coerced or otherwise channelled to joining extremist elements. But it is a mistake to suggest that economic circumstances alone are the major factor that drives youth in to extremism. The causes of youth extremism need to be addressed as a separate exercise.

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, SRI LANKA, Dec 23 2015 (IPS)

Over 195 countries gathered in Paris and agreed on a set of broad measures to address the looming threat to human existence of global warming and climate change. A beaming UN Secretary-General, for whom climate change has been “one of the defining priorities of his tenure”, described the Paris Accord as heralding a generation with climate hope and a “monumental triumph for people and the planet”.

The French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, who Chaired COP21, with emotion written all over his face, gaveled the meeting closed. The global web movement Avaaz, described the Paris Accord as a “brilliant and massive turning point in human history”. The 79 member Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Countries group (ACP), most with relatively small economies, enthusiastically welcomed the accord.

In Paris, the international community agreed, by consensus, to curtail GHG emissions and limit global warming to 2 degrees celsius by 2050, with an aspirational target of 1.5 celsius. Importantly, 188 countries pledged to implement measures unilaterally to realise this goal. They have submitted the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) to the Climate Change Secretariat, to be reviewed every five years.

There is also a commitment to provide $100 billion to developing countries by 2020 for adaptation and mitigation and at least that amount afterwards. The most vulnerable countries will receive over $250 million. Some opine that, if sincerely operationalised, the Paris Accord will have the potential for decarbonising the world economy by the middle of the current century.

The Paris Agreement will be open for signature at the UN in New York from 22 April 2016 and will enter in to force upon ratification/accession by 55 countries that account for at least 55% of the global emissions.

While the exhausted negotiators left for their distant homes, after much backslapping, hugs and teary farewells, some doubts continue to remain on whether humanity has really succeeded in meeting this overwhelming challenge to its very existence.

Even with the INDCs faithfully implemented, global temperatures will continue to rise at least till 2030. Comprehensive changes to human economic activity are essential to achieve the target of limiting global warming by at least 2c by 2050.

Past experience does not engender too much confidence in this regard. The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, concluded by consensus in 1997, was also welcomed with joyous acclaim.

But the US, the biggest emitter of GHGs at the time, having actively participated in the negotiations, signed, but never became party to, the accord. A new administration in Washington ensured that the US would not only not become party but would stridently oppose the Kyoto Protocol.

While the US, now the second biggest emitter of GHGs, played a central role in consensus building in Paris, President Obama’s tenure as president will end in 2016. The Republican Party which has not thrown its weight behind the need to control emission levels, continues to control Congress. Republican presidential hopefuls are anything but sympathetic to limiting GHG emissions. The US policy approach to climate change would provide the excuse for many others to dither.

Canada which also participated enthusiastically in the Kyoto negotiations, formally denounced the Protocol in 2011 largely due to its inability to fulfil its commitments. Australia, another key player in Kyoto, is a major exporter of coal and gas. As to whether countries such as Australia and Canada have the economic ability and the political will to change their fossil fuel export dependent economies will remain a question.

Similarly, harmful industrial agricultural practices, especially large scale animal farming, may present difficult hurdles. Subsidised exports of fossil fuel consuming power plants by developed countries such as Germany, will tie up developing countries to years of fossil fuel use.

Similarly the fast growing economies of China and India which have only recently dragged millions of their people out of poverty, largely through the use of fossil fuels, may face huge challenges domestically in any effort to curtail GHG emissions.

About 60% of GHGs emanate from just five countries, the USA, China, India, Russia and Japan. The EU is responsible for 12% of global emissions. The above countries and the EU can on their own make a significant contribution to decarbonising the world economy.

Furthermore, the Paris Accord contains no legal commitment to curtail emissions in accordance with the INDCs. It requires parties only to meet every five years to review progress. This process could be subject to different pressures, especially from domestic industry.

While some developing countries may be capable of realising the INDCs on their own, many will need funding and climate safe technology to achieve the transition. Much of the climate safe technology is already available although at a high cost.

Developed countries agreed to provide US 100 billion to developing countries till 2020. This figure refers only to funds made available through public sources, although where exactly the full amount will come from is not exactly clear.

The World Bank estimates the funding requirement to facilitate the transition to low carbon and climate resilient economies by developing countries to be in the trillions of Dollars. For its part, it will increase the proportion of funds available to 28% of its portfolio. The Bank hopes that once financing from partners and associated private sector funders are included, the grand total available would be a potential $29 billion per year by 2020.

The World Bank will use the INDCs to develop country specific programmes for its client countries. The US has pledged $800 million. What has been offered still falls far short of the $100 billion that has been agreed to be made available by 2020.

The rapidity with which the developed world produced trillions to rescue the staggering banking system after the financial crisis prompted the present High Commissioner For Human Rights, and the then Permanent Representative of Jordan to the UN, Prince Zeid, to suggest that the climate crisis be described as a banking crisis.

An insurance mechanism for loss and damage and population displacement, relocation, etc., is recognised in the accord but may not be adequate to deal with the emerging crisis. Vast population displacements and climate refugees could be a consequence of global warming. Some writers have alluded to the possibility of Europe’s present refugee crisis, at least partly, having its roots in climate change.

The Paris Accord does not refer to “new and additional funding”, leaving room for official development assistance to be mixed up with climate assistance. Already private sector lending is being counted by some countries as development assistance. Efforts to hold historic polluters responsible for the current crisis have been effectively quashed.

One recalls the abortive effort by Palau and Trinidad and Tobago to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on responsibility for global warming. Funding for the Sustainable Development Goals, despite the Addis Ababa Accord on funding for development, will remain a competing challenge. With climate change adding to the burden, some needs will miss out.

One bright spot might be the encouragement that the renewable energy industry will receive from the Paris outcomes. China, today’s leading emitter of GHGs, with a long term policy approach guiding its industry, is investing heavily on renewable energy in an apparently targeted manner. This has resulted in specific industrial sectors, such as the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines, booming. The environment will benefit.

Given the complexity of the problem of climate change, the enormous estimated cost of addressing it comprehensively and the inevitable resistance from vested interests, consideration should be given by governments to approaching the challenge through key economic sectors, including power generation, motor transport, railways, etc.

(End)

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Nov 6 2015 (IPS)

The UN General Assembly adopted the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at a global summit of world leaders in September. They agreed on 17 new universal goals, and 169 targets that will provide the framework for economic and political policies of UN Member States over the next 15 years to make the world a better place for humanity.

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

The SDGs are expected to seamlessly expand on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Agreed by governments in 2000, the MDGs, numbering eight, were also to be accomplished in 15 years. Impressive successes were recorded by some countries with regard to these goals, mostly through their own efforts.

The MDGs were essentially intended to accelerate the development of developing countries in the eight sectors identified. The substantial non-realisation of the last goal, global partnerships, including the non-delivery of the expected level of development assistance by developed countries, impacted on the full attainment of the other goals in many poor parts of the world.

The SDGs will apply to every country. Even their partial attainment in the coming 15 years will pose a gigantic challenge to all of humanity. In a world where, embarrassingly, more than 1 billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day, more than 800 million go to bed hungry, 57 million children have no access to education, 2.4 billion live without proper toilet facilities, 663 million lack access to safe water, one third of all schools lack safe water and toilet facilities, millions of women still die in childbirth and many more children do not live to reach their fifth birthday, the SDGs may turn out to be simply too daunting.

One pressing and distracting challenge ballooning from a destabilised Middle East is the massive outflow of displaced persons across borders. More than 38 million remained displaced the world over in 2014.

The targets, assiduously refined by the negotiators, have given substance to the SDGs. A target under goal one, for example, includes reducing by at least half the number of people living in poverty by 2030, and eradicating extreme poverty (people living on less than $1.25 a day).

The enormous cost of meeting these goals has not begun to be fully absorbed yet. Even if the world will eventually pat itself on the back for achieving some of the goals, the cost of reaching them is simply mind boggling.

Rough calculations made by the intergovernmental committee of experts on sustainable development financing have put the cost of providing a social safety net to eradicate extreme poverty at 66 billion dollars a year, while annual investments to improve infrastructure (water, agriculture, transport, power) could be up to 7.0 trillion dollars globally.

The Addis Ababa conference on Financing for Development (FfD) last July, which preceded the SDG summit, formulated conclusions with a view to identifying funding sources for the SDGs. The UN ritually hailed the Addis Ababa action agenda (AAAA for short) as containing “bold measures to overhaul global finance practices and generate investment” for tackling the challenges of sustainable development.

On closer analysis, the commitments made by the multilateral financial institutions, the UN agencies, the private sector charities and the bilateral donor community, though impressive, do not appear to come even close to the sums required to achieve the SDGs. The search for funding for the SDGs continues to be constrained by thinking based on an old framework that really did not deliver the desired results.

A worryingly emerging development is the determined effort by traditional donor countries to shift responsibility to entities that are difficult to hold to account internationally (e.g. private charities and corporations), signalling an abrogation of their long recognised obligation to provide development assistance.

If history were a guide, it is unlikely that even a meaningful portion of the estimated costs will be met through bilateral and multilateral development assistance. The 40-year-old commitment to transfer 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) to developing countries, despite the recommitment in Addis Ababa, is still an elusive goal for most developed countries.

Even with the imaginative accounting practices adopted by some donors in recent times, including counting environmental assistance in development financing, the target remains distant for most.

The international community may have reached a point where it is necessary to acknowledge the elements and approaches that failed in previous development exercises. Likewise it needs to recognize the approaches that succeeded and are sustainable. Little Singapore at one end of the spectrum and large China at the other end offer examples of success. But what succeeded in one place may not necessarily work elsewhere.

While it is expected that developing countries themselves will raise some of the necessary funding, including through the building of strong institutions, better taxation, reduction of corruption and stemming the illicit outflow of funds, these measures will not necessarily produce significant results in the short term.

A widely hawked policy approach to development encourages public-private partnerships. Since the financial crisis of 2008, state involvement in the economy is no longer dismissed even by the conservatives. While some developing countries will follow this path with success, it is difficult to imagine that many, especially the smaller ones, with their limited economic opportunities, would or could.

The lack of personnel trained in modern economic management, costly and usually imported energy sources, economic limitations that do not encourage the ready flow of foreign investments are critical constraints. Bilateral development assistance will continue to play a role, especially for the large number of such small developing countries.

Many of the SDGs interface with others. For example, the goal on climate change with its cross cutting importance, impacts, directly or indirectly, on a range of others. Ending poverty and hunger, ensuring food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture, managing water resources and sanitation, achieving sustainable economic growth and employment and sustainable industrialisation, and using renewable energy, among them.

The oceans, inter alia, are the major influence on weather patterns, the biggest sink for GHGs, the predominant source of protein for humanity and a major employment generator. The sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources will need to be kept in mind when addressing climate change.

A holistic and proactive approach to the SDGs could also be a catalyst for innovation, development of new technologies and establishment of new industries.

Countries will meet at the end of November in Paris to address the now undeniable threat of climate change. This meeting cannot be only about GHG emission targets, however ambitious.

The SDGs, especially sustainable production and consumption patterns, among others, will need to be confronted with honesty in Paris. Unless efforts are made to identify realistic funding sources, especially for the less developed countries, and the requisite technologies, we may have to leave Paris with more regrets than achievements.

(End)

Excerpt:

Mongolia depositing ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, on Sep. 28, 2015

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, SRI LANKA, Sep 29 2015 (IPS)

As it celebrates its 70th birthday, a proud achievement of the United Nations over its lifetime, is the framework of multilateral treaties that it has been instrumental in putting in place.

Today a mind boggling network of treaties has proliferated affecting every imaginable area of human interaction, including trade, aviation, shipping, transport, human rights, outer space, terrorism and organised crime, disarmament, the environment, the oceans and seas, etc.

Treaties are widely recognised as the pre-eminent source of international law in the contemporary world and the reach of a treaty based international legal order, including dispute settlement mechanisms, has gradually extended and consolidated. They have become the foundation for creating a better world through the adoption of commonly negotiated and accepted standards with legal force.

Treaty making among sovereigns, inter alia, for the regulation of conduct among themselves, to facilitate economic and commercial relations, to demarcate their territorial boundaries and to avoid conflict, has a long history.

One of the oldest known treaties was between the Hittites and Ramses II of Egypt, a bronze replica of which is displayed in the U.N. building. Interestingly, many of the provisions of this treaty could sit comfortably in a modern instrument. Not much seems to have changed in the way states deal with each other in 5000 years.

Over 560 multilateral treaties are deposited with the U.N. Secretary-General. Most have been concluded under the auspices of the U.N. or with U.N. assistance. Facilitating multilateral treaty making has been a major preoccupation of the U.N. since its inception.

Treaties, which were originally concluded to regulate inter-sovereign relations, have increasingly been negotiated in response to a variety of emerging global needs with an ever increasing impact on the lives of individuals, on communities and the world in general.

A few have been inherited by the U.N. Secretary-General from the short-lived League of Nations. Multilateral treaties on human rights, climate change, the oceans, terrorism and organised crime, to name a few, attract much attention today.

For historical reasons, the Charter of the U.N. itself, which has 193 parties, is deposited with the USA. Significantly, some of the landmark standard setting instruments affecting humanity are not treaties but U.N. declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Millennium Development Goals of 2000 adopted through the Millennium Declaration and the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015.

Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, the U.N. has made a sustained effort to secure wider participation in the multilateral treaties deposited with the U.N. Secretary-General, organising a dedicated treaty event during each UNGA, under the theme, “AN INVITATION TO UNIVERSAL PARTICIPATION”.

The initial Treaty Event of 2000 was successful beyond all expectations attracting 274 treaty actions and the participation of 84 heads of state and government and other high dignitaries. Reflecting the importance that they attached to global treaties, world leaders such as Jacques Chirac of France, Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, Tony Blair of the UK, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India, trooped in to place their signatures on treaties deposited with the Secretary-General (SG).

A number of the multilateral treaties deposited with the SG are close to achieving universal participation, including non-members of the U.N. For example, ground breaking treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women have secured almost universal participation.

For a country that wields unparalleled economic and political power and one that has been a proactive advocate for advancing the international legal order, the USA, sticks out as a non-party to any of the above.

It is recognised that many provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention, which commands only 167 parties as of now, have become part of customary international law. Major states such as the USA, Turkey, Venezuela and Peru are still to become party to it due to domestic and other considerations but comply with most of its provisions.

Two implementing agreements to the Convention, one on its Part XI and the other on Straddling Fish Stocks, have been concluded and have entered in to force. Negotiations on a third, on marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction, are expected to commence soon.

Some multilateral treaties, concluded with great enthusiasm and fanfare, are still a long way from entering into force. Some require just a few more ratifications or accessions to trigger their entry into force. With its complex entry into force provisions, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a key component of the disarmament framework, is still not in force.

Efforts to secure wider participation in the multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General continues. In his letter of invitation to Member States to the 2015 Treaty Event, the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, states that the Event “provides a distinct opportunity for States to fulfil pledges made in national and international fora to sign on to, and particularly, to ratify or accede to multilateral treaties”.

It is unusual for a state to withdraw from a multilateral treaty. Only a handful of examples exist. Canada denounced the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. North Korea sought to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1997 but the Secretary-General, as depositary, took the view that withdrawal would only be possible with the consent of all the parties.

The Charter of the U.N. contains specific provisions on treaties. Article 102 requires that, “Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.”
Over 60,000 treaties have been registered with the U.N. and published in the U.N. Treaty Series now available on-line. Despite the Charter requirement, it is estimated that only a fraction of the treaties concluded, is registered with the Secretariat. It is said that the U.N. Treaty Collection on the web is accessed over one million times a month.

The genesis of Article 102 lies almost 100 years ago when Leon Trotsky published the secret treaties of the Tsarist Government causing an outcry about the destructive consequences of secret treaties. The U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson, identified secret treaties as a cause of wars and, at his insistence, Article 18 of the Statute of the League of Nations was adopted, requiring all treaties to be registered with the League and published by it.

This provision was later incorporated in the U.N. Charter with the added proviso that treaties, which were not registered could not be invoked before an organ of the U.N.

Treaties constitute the major source of international law. The conclusion of a treaty per se does not guarantee proper compliance. The provisions of a treaty that has entered into force must be implemented.

A multilateral treaty itself, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in its Article 26, states that a treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be implemented in good faith. By and large, states abide by their treaty obligations.

Even when doubts exist about the legality of an action, extreme efforts are made to find legal justifications. A state would not normally become party to a treaty until its domestic implementing mechanisms, including legislation, are in place.

This tendency of states to comply with their international legal obligations augurs well for a world, many parts of which are still mired in discord and conflict, sometimes with the involvement of major powers.

The fact that the language used in treaty making, in some instances, facilitates interpretations of convenience, tends to sow seeds of doubt about the efficacy of one of the U.N.’s major achievements, the global network of treaties.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, SRI LANKA, Sep 15 2015 (IPS)

UNGA 70 formally commenced on Sep. 15. In accordance with custom, it elected a new President, Denmark’s Mogens Lykketoft, who has picked as the theme for his tenure as the President, “The UN at 70 – A New Commitment to Action”.

An appropriate theme as this year’s highlight, the Summit for the Adoption of the Post 2015 Development Agenda, will take place from Sep. 25 to 27 just before the General Debate.

The high levels segment of the General Debate will commence on Sep. 28. His Holiness the Pope will address the General Assembly on Sep. 25, before the start of the Summit. The Pope is a head of state as well as the leader of a major faith, but it is unusual for a head of a state to be accommodated in this manner.

Every U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) is billed as exceptionally important. Some get a higher rating. The 50th, the 60th and now the 70th. This is the time of the year when hotel tariffs and short term rentals in New York sky rocket for no cost associated reasons. A captive clientele has become used to this blatant gauging. Restaurants do a brisk trade and prior reservations become essential. The city makes a pretty packet during this period.

Of course, it is also the time New Yorkers gripe most about the traffic snarls. Some roads are closed for the duration of the high level segment, like the section of the First Avenue in front of the U.N., others like the Second Avenue and 57th Street have lanes dedicated to motorcades of delegations and whenever the President of the United States is on the road, entire city blocks are shut down.

As is the case every year, UNGA is the high point in the Secretariat’s annual calendar. With 70 years of fine tuning it handles this task well. Unfortunately, many in the Secretariat consider the UNGA as only an opportunity for important world leaders to make grand speeches. Follow-up action may not necessarily be a factor in their preparations. Many a stimulating idea eloquently expressed before the GA may be lost for this reason.

The arrival of high level delegations is anticipated with excitement, speaking slots allocated (now on-line), assembly halls prepared and swept for security purposes, dozens of bilateral meeting rooms specially constructed, the meeting schedules of the Secretary-General and other senior officials meticulously prepared, and, since the Millennium Summit, appointments given for undertaking treaty actions in a specially constructed facility.

Officers attached to Permanent Missions, especially junior officers, work appalling hours in order to ensure that their heads of delegation are satisfied with the arrangements made. Arranging bilateral meetings is a demanding task.

Capitals, consumed with their own importance, demand bilaterals with the mightiest. In many instances, these demands just can not be met as the dignitaries whose time is requested have their own priorities or are unwilling to spare the time due to unsatisfactory previous encounters with underprepared interlocutors.

However, bilateral meetings provide real opportunities for substantive work. The presence of dozens of leaders in New York provides opportunities for constructive discussions to occur without the need for expensive and time consuming country visits. Many diplomatic successes have also been achieved through carefully choreographed “accidental” meetings in U.N. corridors.

There are heads of state and government who are simply happy to be in NY, away from the daily political pressures back home.

Gone are the days when third secretaries and attaches camped outside the secretariat on the night before the allocation of speaking slots so that they could get the first slots. Although the speakers’ lists are now prepared electronically, the Secretariat also intervenes and some horse trading for prime slots still takes place. Pressure is applied on colleagues for the exchange of slots for various reasons.

The prized speaking opportunities are on the first day of the General Debate. Since the Secretary-General’s report and the statement of the President of the United States are made on the morning of the first day, delegations know from experience, that a full house could be assured during this session.

Delegations do not fancy the final speaking slots in the morning of the first day as they tend to overlap with the luncheon traditionally hosted by the Secretary-General for visiting heads of state and government. The last few slots in the afternoon session of the opening day are also avoided due to the possibility of clashing with the reception customarily hosted by the President of the United States.

An increasing tendency is for leaders to address the General Assembly in their own languages knowing well that their message is mainly for the audiences back home. In many cases a statement carefully crafted and delivered in English or French will only have an audience of bored junior diplomatic officers and interns busily texting each other about something trivial oblivious to the importance of the message being delivered by the distinguished speaker.

A solution to this issue needs to be found. Recent years have witnessed some colourful leaders at the UNGA, like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahamedinajad, who unfailingly left an impression. Some provoked walk outs. Two are no longer alive and the other is out of politics.

Speech making is the main task of the high level participants. The tendency is to speak on whatever subject that the head of state or government fancies paying scant attention to the theme selected by the President of the GA. Of course, heads of state and government, many of whom have travelled far, do not appreciate being made to address the largely empty auditorium.

Conscious of this possibility, some ambassadors now write to their colleagues inviting them to attend the statement of their head of state or government. Sadly, many statements prepared over months, delivered in a language alien to the speaker, and praised by a fawning delegation are forgotten even before the beaming head of delegation has left for home.

The statements that remain relevant contain ideas which are picked up by other delegations and converted to action oriented resolutions of the U.N. Resolutions bind the Secretariat and carry a moral weight for the global community, especially where they are supported by a substantial majority. Exceptionally some may result in legally binding treaties.

This is also a time when people who have kept away from their permanent missions for a whole year suddenly rediscover friendships in order to obtain passes to enter the Secretariat building to see their own heads of state speaking.

At UNGA 70, exceptionally, the high level segment will be split in to two. The Summit for the adoption of the global sustainable development goals will be held on from Sep. 25 to 27. The SDGs, formulated by a U.N. working group, through an exacting process under the guidance of the Permanent Representatives of Kenya and Hungary (Ambassadors Macharia Kamau and Csaba Korosi) have as their genesis the Rio+20 Outcomes Document.

The 17 SDGs identified are expected to build upon the progress achieved under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), but in a more comprehensive manner. The MDGs are considered to be a more successful initiative of the U.N.

The results of the MDGs would have been more impressive had goal number 8 (partnerships) been better realised. The success of the SDGs would also depend on the faithful delivery of commitments on aid, financing and trade.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Jun 22 2015 (IPS)

The international community must focus its energies immediately on addressing the grave challenges confronting the oceans. With implications for global order and peace, the oceans are also becoming another arena for national rivalry.

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

The clouds of potential conflict gather on the horizon. The U.N. resolution adopted on June 19 confirms the urgency felt by the international community to take action.

His Holiness the Pope observed last week, “Oceans not only contain the bulk of our planet’s water supply, but also most of the immense variety of living creatures, many of them still unknown to us and threatened for various reasons. What is more, marine life in rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, which feeds a great part of the world’s population, is affected by uncontrolled fishing, leading to a drastic depletion of certain species… It is aggravated by the rise in temperature of the oceans.”

The oceans demand our attention for many reasons. In a world constantly hungering for ever more raw material and food, the oceans, which cover 71 percent of the globe, are estimated to contain approximately 24 trillion dollars of exploitable assets. Eighty-six million tonnes of fish were harvested from the oceans in 2013, providing 16 percent of humanity’s protein requirement. Fisheries generated over 200 million jobs.

However, unsustainable practices have decimated many fish species, increasing competition for the rest. The once prolific North Atlantic cod, the Pacific tuna and the South American anchovy fisheries have all but collapsed with disastrous socio-economic consequences.Increasingly the world's energy requirements, oil and gas from below the sea bed, as well as wind and wave power, come from the realm of the oceans, setting the stage for potentially explosive confrontations among states competing for energy sources.

Highly capitalised and subsidised distant water fleets engage in predatory fishing in foreign waters causing tensions which could escalate. In a striking development, the West African Sub Regional Fisheries Commission recently successfully asserted, before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the responsibility of flag States to take necessary measures to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Increasingly the world’s energy requirements, oil and gas from below the sea bed, as well as wind and wave power, come from the realm of the oceans, setting the stage for potentially explosive confrontations among states competing for energy sources. The sea bed could also provide many of the minerals required by strategic industries.

As these assets come within humanity’s technological reach, inadequately managed exploitation will cause damage to the ocean ecology and coastal areas, demonstrated dramatically by the BP Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. (Costing the company over 42.2 billion dollars).

Cross-border environmental damage could give rise to international conflicts. A proposal to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on responsibility for global warming and sea level rise was floated at the U.N. by Palau in 2013.

The oceans will also be at the centre of our efforts to address the looming threat of climate change. With ocean warming, fish species critically important to poor communities in the tropics are likely to migrate to more agreeable climes, aggravating poverty levels.

Coastal areas could be flooded and fresh water resources contaminated by tidal surges. Increasing ocean acidification and coral bleach could cause other devastating consequences, including to fragile coasts and fish breeding grounds.

The ocean is the biggest sink of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that the rapid increases in anthropogenic GHGs will aggravate ocean warming and the melting of the ice caps. Some small island groups might even disappear beneath the waves.

Scientists now believe that over 70 percent of anthropogenic GHGs generated since the turn of the 20th century were absorbed by the Indian Ocean which is likely to result in unpredictable consequences for the littoral states of the region, already struggling to emerge from poverty.

The increasing ferocity of natural phenomena, such as hurricanes and typhoons, will cause greater devastation as we witnessed in the cases of Katrina in the U.S. and the brutal Haiyan in the Philippines.

The socio-economic impacts of global warming and sea level rise on the multi-billion-dollar tourism industry (476 billion dollars in the U.S. alone) would be far reaching. All this could result in unmanageable environmental refugee flows. The enormous challenge of ocean warming and sea level rise alone would require nations to become more proactive on ocean affairs now.

The international community has, over the years, agreed on various mechanisms to address ocean-related issues. But these efforts remain largely uncoordinated and with the developments in science, lacunae are being identified progressively.

The most comprehensive of these endeavours is the laboriously negotiated Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) of 1982. The LOSC, described as the constitution of the oceans by Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore, who presided over the final stages of the negotiations, details rules for the interactions of states with the oceans and with each other with regard to the oceans.

Although some important states such as the U.S., Israel, Venezuela and Turkey are not parties to the LOSC (it has 167 parties), much of its content is accepted as part of customary international law. It also provides a most comprehensive set of options for settling inter-state disputes relating to the seas and oceans, including the ITLOS, headquartered in Hamburg.

The LOSC established the Sea Bed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica which now manages exploration and mining applications relating to the Area, the sea bed beyond national jurisdiction, and the U.N. Commission on the Continental Shelf before which many state parties have already successfully asserted claims to vast areas of their continental shelves.

With humanity’s knowledge of the oceans and seas expanding rapidly and the gaps in the LOSC becoming apparent, the international community in 1994 concluded the Implementing Agreement Relating to Part XI of the LOSC and in 1995, the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement.

Additionally, the United Nations Environment Programme has put in place a number of regional arrangements, some in collaboration with other U.N. agencies such as the FAO and the IMO, for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, including fisheries.

The IMO itself has put in place detailed agreements and arrangements affecting the oceans and the seas in relation to shipping. The FAO has been instrumental in promoting regional mechanisms for the sustainable use of marine and coastal fisheries resources.

In 2012, the U.N. Secretary-General launched the Oceans Compact. States negotiating the Post-2015 Development Goals at the U.N. have acknowledged the vast and complex challenges confronting the oceans and have proceeded to highlight them in the context of a Sustainable Development Goal.

The majority of the international community now feel that the global arrangements for the sustainable use, conservation and benefit sharing of biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction need further strengthening. The negotiators of the LOSC were not fully conscious of the extent of the genetic resources of the deep. Ninety percent of the world’s living biomass is to be found in the oceans.

Today the genetic material, bio prospected, harvested or mined from the oceans is providing the basis for profound new discoveries pertaining to pharmaceuticals. Only a few countries possess the technical capability to conduct the relevant research, and even fewer the ability to convert the research into financially beneficial products. The international community’s concerns are reflected in the U.N. General Assembly resolution adopted on June 19.

Many developing countries are concerned that unless appropriate regulatory mechanisms are put in place now by the international community, the poor will be be shut out from the vast wealth, estimated at three billion dollars per year, expected to be generated from this new frontier. Over 4,000 new patents, the number growing at 12 percent a year based on such genetic material, were registered in 2013.

A U.N. working group, initially established back in 2006 to study the question of concluding a legally binding instrument on the conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing of biological diversity beyond the national jurisdiction of states, and co-chaired by Sri Lanka and The Netherlands from 2009, submitted its report in January 2015, after years of difficult negotiations.

For nine years, consensus remained elusive. Certain major powers, including the U.S., Russia, Japan, Norway and the Republic of Korea held out, contending that the existing arrangements were sufficient. These are among the few which possess the technological capability to exploit the genetic resources of the deep and convert the research in to useful products.

The U.N. General Assembly is now expected to establish a preparatory committee in 2016 to make recommendations on an implementing instrument under UNCLOS. An intergovernmental conference is likely to be convened by the GA at its 72nd Session for this purpose.

The resulting mechanism is expected to complement the existing arrangements on biological genetic material under the FAO and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Nagoya Protocol) applicable to areas under national jurisdiction.

This ambitious U.N. process is likely to create a transparent regulatory mechanism facilitating technological and economic progress while ensuring equity.

A development with long term impact, especially since Rio+20, was the community of interests identified and strengthened between the G 77 and China and the EU with regard to the oceans.

Life originated in the primeval ocean. Humanity’s future may very well depend on how we care for it.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, May 26 2015 (IPS)

As the U.N. enters its 70th year, it is legitimate to ask whether it has been a success so far. Over the years, the media, in particular the Western media, has tended to highlight the U.N.’s failures.

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

The still unfinished business in the Korean Peninsula, the morass that was Congo, the impotency in Vietnam, it’s ineffectiveness during much of the cold war, the paralysis in Rwanda, it’s inability to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end, and many such unedifying instances have tended to garner the headlines.

But as Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold so succinctly proclaimed, the U.N. was not created to send humanity to heaven, simply to stop it from going to hell. Likewise, it has been said that if the U.N. did not exist we would have had to invent it.

Given the current global suspicions and rivalries, it is unlikely that we would succeed in creating a U.N. today from scratch. Despite all the criticisms for its failures, it has achieved much in its 70 years of existence. It could be described as the most successful and truly global political organisation ever created.

One of the key goals of the United Nations, created on the ashes of the devastating Second World War, was to prevent another world war. In this it has succeeded. The major powers have not battled each other militarily in the last 70 years. While innumerable regional, bilateral, and internal conflicts and proxy wars have caused millions of deaths and inestimable property damage, a global conflagration has been avoided.The end of the Cold War brought hope that the world body would be able to make useful progress on many fronts. But the rekindling of confrontational attitudes again among the major powers has introduced a new era of uncertainty.

The U.N. has been described as a private club. Its members decide what the club should do. Although the world at large may have other higher expectations, the U.N. is able to do only what it’s membership and the Charter would permit it to do. The most effective results are achieved where a consensus is obtained.

The way it’s constitution (the Charter) is formulated ensures that it’s powers are strictly constrained. (More about this later). At the same time the rights and privileges of those who won the Second World War are well and truly entrenched in a blatantly undemocratic manner, causing much disenchantment in a world where the political, economic and social power centres have shifted significantly.

Due to the manner it was designed, especially due to the power of veto conferred on the P5 in the Security Council, its freedom of action is limited to situations where the veto wielders agree. The Cold War paralyzed the U.N. substantially hobbling it during those dangerous years of East -West confrontation.

The end of the Cold War brought hope that the world body would be able to make useful progress on many fronts. But the rekindling of confrontational attitudes again among the major powers has introduced a new era of uncertainty.

Similarly, North South relations have always been clouded by suspicions traceable to the colonial experience. This constraint continues to influence attitudes and is not helped by an overbearing, “we know best” approach of the West. The Group of 77, originally intended to be the platform of developing countries on economic and social issues, is no longer 77. Taking in China (a P5 country), it has grown to 134. Not all of its members are poor developing countries.

Similarly, the Non Aligned Movement, originally intended to be the force not aligned to the East or the West, has tended to pull in different directions with no cohesive non aligned focus. Some have dropped out of this group. The growing tendency of the Security Council to adopt decisions binding on all member states on a range of issues that should properly be the responsibility of the General Assembly, has also come in for criticism.

The Security Council, dominated by the P5, has taken upon itself the task of legislating to the entire international community in certain situations, denying the vast majority of Member States any opportunity to influence such law making.

On the positive side, the human, social and economic rights standards of the world have improved substantially due to the work of the United Nations. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the Organisation has progressively adopted a range of multilateral conventions setting standards on civil and political rights, social, economic and cutural rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, indegenous rights, disabled persons’ rights, racial discrimination, etc.

With these globally agreed benchmarks in place, the world is certainly a better place today than it was in 1945. Admittedly, the conclusion of a multilateral treaty or becoming party to a treaty does not per se advance the condition of individual persons. But the very existence of these universally accepted standards, creates the incentive to strive for those higher goals. some times with a little bit of added pressure.

The U.N. has been mainly responsible for the unprecedented development of the international rule of law. The secretary-general’s office is the repository of over 550 multilateral treaties, the vast majority of them negotiated under the auspices of the U.N.. They cover almost every aspect of human interaction, including the environment, the oceans, aviation, trade, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, organised crime, the outer space, shipping, road rules, etc.

The complex network of rules encompassed in these treaties have established standards for the conduct of individual states as never before. The international rule of law thus established, seeps down to national level in many areas influencing the development of the rule of law within countries.

The U.N. and its agencies have been successful in mobilising the international community on various issues of common interest. As the scourge of terrorism surged across borders and became a threat to many countries, the U.N. was able to mobilize states and resources to address this threat.

Expertise was assembled, resources were mobilised, training was provided to countries that needed it, and awareness was raised to a high level. In the absence of the U.N. and it’s agencies, it is doubtful if these advances could have been achieved. Much more remains to be done.

Similarly, the global response to health threats such as the AIDS pandemic, the swine flu and avian flu threats that had the potential to cause havoc and the more recent Ebola epidemic were countered due to the existence of the U.N. and it’s agencies. The U.N. has developed an impressive ability to raise awareness rapidly and mobilise member states to respond quickly to threats of this nature.

The manner that the world body has responded to natural and man made disasters has saved countless lives and alleviated much misery. The U.N.’s ongoing work in the areas of the environment, the oceans and sustainable development will bring further benefits to humankind.

The U.N. has been successful in restoring normalcy to a number of global situations that threatened to continue causing untold violence and misery. Cambodia has emerged as a stable and increasingly prosperous country after a decade of conflict largely as a consequence of the U.N. brokered peace and the subsequent peacekeeping operation.

Timor Leste, after a quarter century of conflict, has established itself as a peaceful member of the international community. The U.N. prodded and cajoled Mozambique and Angola to a new era of peace.

South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy and majority rule was painstakingly facilitated by the U.N. The role of the world organisation in guiding the Former Yugoslavia’s successor states to peace, after the initial explosion of violence, was not insignificant. Even the complex legal question of succession was dealt with imaginatively by the world body.

This brings us on to a vital and expanded area of U.N. activity – peacekeeping. Since its first peacekeeping operations on the borders of Israel and between India and Pakistan, its peacekeeping role has expanded substantially, with peacekeepers being given multidimensional mandates.

Today the U.N. is actively engaged in peacekeeping operations in 16 countries. It has over 122,000 staff performing peacekeeping functions, including civilian, police and military personnel, contributed voluntarily by 122 Member States.

The cost of peace keeping exceeds 7.1 billion dollars, making it the costliest segment of U.N. operations. Now, U.N. peacekeepers may be permitted to play an offensive role to defend their mandates, including the protection of civilians.

While there are impressive success stories, peacekeeping related criticisms also abound. The U.N.’s peacekeeping efforts may meet with greater success if their mandates are formulated with better information originating at ground level and following more structured consultations, including with host governments, if the mandates are clearly defined and the peace keeping troops are better briefed, equipped and selected on the basis of experience and training, if operations are regularly reviewed and exit strategies are well defined. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency for some missions to be extended indefinitely.

As the world moves forward there is an increasing clamour to reform the United Nations to reflect contemporary political and economic circumstances. The most difficult challenge will be to reform the Security Council which substantially reflects the power structures of the post World War world. Two of the P5 are Europeans and members of the EU. It is quite likely that two elected members would also be members of the EU.

At the moment, the WEOG group in the Security Council with New Zealand has six members out of 15. Africa has three of the elected members, Latin America and the Caribbean two and Asia two plus the Permanent seat (China).

This imbalance in the Security Council structure can not be sustained. While an entity that reflects the privileges of the victors of a war concluded 70 years ago may not be modified by another war. But dramatically altered global socio-economic realities might help to introduce change.

Making the international civil service of the U.N. truly effective has been another challenge. Constantly criticised by the major contributors, it has chugged along for 70 years. While intermittent efforts have been made under different SGs to make it more dynamic and responsive to contemporary needs, it is probably the time to approach this task in a comprehensive manner. The Organisation must be able to deliver on its mandates efficiently to the satisfaction of member states.

By Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, May 8 2015 (IPS)

Sustainable development is central to a range of key discussions at the United Nations and elsewhere at the moment.

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

The role of South-South cooperation in the context of sustainable development deserves greater recognition as significant numbers of developing countries begin to ascend the development ladder in a sustainable manner, causing fundamental changes to the development infrastructure the world has known up to now.

The steady expansion of South-South cooperation is causing a lasting impression on the existing order of things.

First, the best practices adopted by the more economically advanced developing countries could provide workable and relevant models for the others.

Some developing countries have recorded impressive economic successes and the policies they have successfully implemented could be shared. Contrary to existing practice, models of development will increasingly be borrowed from outside the developed world.

Secondly, some advanced developing countries have accumulated considerable international currency reserves and developed relevant technology which could be effectively deployed in the rest of the developing world. This is happening already.

Thirdly, the flow of funding and technology from other developing countries to the rest of the South will result in dramatic changes to relationships largely based on post-colonial and historical dependencies and the inevitable conditionalities. This would create an uncomfortable challenge for those used to the current relationship patterns.The traditional development cooperation patterns, many dependent on former colonial ties, perpetuating a dependent mindset and loaded with conditionality, may be sputtering to an end as a new framework of South South cooperation consolidates itself in the global arena.

Sustainable development was the underlying concept that inspired States as they painstakingly negotiated the Rio+20 outcomes document, The Future We Want.

The Member States are currently working on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, essentially drawing on the report of the Open Working Group (OWG), to produce a master plan for progress, to be realised by 2030, that will ensure just, equitable and inclusive growth. The report of this exercise will be submitted for adoption to the U.N. High Level Summit to be held in September 2015 in New York.

The Post-2015 Development Agenda will seamlessly expand the significant achievements secured under the Millennium Development Goals which targeted eight specific areas. The new enterprise will touch upon many more aspects of our lives, including of women, youth, children, the disadvantaged and the marginalised, in a manner that the Millennium Development Goals did not.

A process culminating in a meeting of States Parties in Addis Ababa in July on Financing for Development will build on the accords of Monterrey and Doha and will adopt recommendations on the funding aspect for the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

The alleviation of poverty and the elimination of hunger are at the core of this exercise. We live in a world where close to 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. It is estimated that ending poverty in the world will cost 66 billion dollars per year. Over one billion live on less than 1.25 dollars per day. Over 2.5 billion have no access to clean water and proper sanitation resulting in massive health issues, including the stunting of children.

The number of least developed countries has remained the same since the year 2000, the year the MDGs were adopted, although progress has been made towards making the world a better place over the last 15 years.

Along with addressing poverty and hunger, the international community is discussing the related challenges, inter alia, of providing better health care and education for all, creating better cities and communities, ensuring decent work, confronting the daunting challenges facing the oceans, the imminent threat of climate change and biodiversity loss, mainstreaming women and children’s issues, providing energy for all, ensuring sustainable industrialisation, and building global partnerships.

The way humanity will address the threats confronting the oceans, in particular, its riches valued at an estimated 24 trillion dollars, will have a major impact on the environment, climate change, the livelihoods of millions of people and the economies of many countries, especially the Small Island Developing States and the Less Developed Countries.

In the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals adopted in 2000, the international community failed specifically on Goal 8 which focused on partnerships. The commitments made on the delivery of assistance to the developing world by the traditional donor community, including technology transfer, failed to materialise to the extent anticipated despite the solemn accords reached at Monterrey, Doha and elsewhere.

The gap between the rich and the poor has continued to grow and the elimination of poverty in many developing countries remains an ever distant dream, affecting a huge proportion of the global population.

Against this challenging background, the advances made by some developing countries provide practical examples of useful best practices and provide possible opportunities for a new framework for development cooperation.

China has pulled out over 680 million from extreme poverty in a short period of 30 years. This is an unprecedented achievement in human history. Its economy, which was at the bottom end of the world in the 1950s, is second only to that of the United States today and is expected to grow further.

Despite its headlong rush towards development and the enormity of the attendant challenges, China is also making impressive gains in the harnessing of alternative energy such as hydro, solar, wind, bio mass and gassified coal, bringing in to question the defensive contention of those industrialised countries which have argued that such a comprehensive embrace of alternative energy would result in major job losses and negative effects on their economies.

The initially costly, but essential, shift to renewable energy will facilitate continuing development in a sustainable manner, and the experiences of countries such as China, India and Brazil may provide an attractive model for other developing countries.

Many countries in South East Asia are also making rapid economic progress with Indonesia expected to become the sixth largest economy of the world by 2030. Sri Lanka, despite its developing country status, has attained enviable targets in the delivery of education services, health care and the integration of women to the national economy.

UNICEF highlights Sri Lanka as a success story. State-sponsored agricultural extension services which increasingly emphasise sustainability have been a major factor in the impressive advances made in this sector by Sri Lanka.

Bangladesh has halved the number of people living in poverty. While the experiences of any one developing country, or the technical knowhow deployed, may not necessarily be duplicated in another, useful lessons can still be learnt.

The lessons that can be shared are evident and South-South Cooperation has become a significant trove of experiences that can be accessed as the challenge of development is addressed. Interestingly, China studied the Greater Colombo Export Processing Zone of Sri Lanka before it established its spectacularly successful Shenzhen Zone.

Infrastructure projects could be and have been funded from public private partnerships, government to government arrangements or by the private sector. Africa’s current spurt of growth has been facilitated by a combination of these mechanisms, with much of the crucial funding and technology coming from China and a lesser amount from India, Brazil, etc..

Sri Lanka’s recent surge in economic expansion depended much on Chinese, and to a lesser extent on Indian, funding and technology. China’s initiative to establish an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which was initially proposed in 2013 by President Xi Jingping, is attracting even traditional donor states in unexpected numbers (57 as of now), despite initial reservations.

It is clear that South-South cooperation is playing a crucial role, especially in developing countries, in adding zest to their economies. Important lessons are being learnt and fundamental changes to established frameworks in global cooperation are being introduced. It may even be argued that the catalyst that propelled many developing country economies to a different level was the recent expansion of cooperation from other developing countries.

The traditional development cooperation patterns, many dependent on former colonial ties, perpetuating a dependent mindset and loaded with conditionality, may be sputtering to an end as a new framework of South South cooperation consolidates itself in the global arena. The states negotiating the Post-2015 Development Agenda will be conscious of the need to reflect the changing nature of the global development framework in their work.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
NEW YORK, Mar 26 2015 (IPS)

With Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s term of office tapering off by the end of 2016, there is increasing chatter in the corridors of the United Nations on his successor.

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: U.N. Photo/Mark Garten

The interest in the top post at the U.N. has been heightened because of the issues that have emerged.

Among them: the importance of respecting the principle of regional rotation; the need to have a woman occupy the top job at the U.N. after 70 years of its existence; and the importance of more transparency in an organisation that devotes much energy to promote democracy in the world.

These are prominent among some of the conversation starters in the U.N. cocktail circuit, all against the background clamour to reform the Organisation.

The Charter itself says little on the appointment process. Article 97 stipulates that the General Assembly (GA) will appoint a secretary-general (SG) on the recommendation of the Security Council. As with much else at the U.N., the practice with regard to the appointment of the SG also has evolved in response to contemporary pressures. Resolutions 11/1 of 1946 and 54/246 of 1997 are important on this matter.

The Security Council will, in the first instance, seek consensus prior to recommending a candidate to the GA, although 9 votes in favour of a candidate in the Council would suffice.

If consensus is not feasible, the Council will vote on the candidates available. The practice of conducting straw polls among the members of the SC has become popular in recent times.While early aspirants to the post did not campaign under spurious pretexts, the need to approach a wide range of countries to seek their blessings is increasingly recognised.

To the disappointment of many members of the world body, the recommendation is adopted at a private meeting in accordance with Rule 48 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure.

The Permanent Five of the SC (P5) – namely Britain, the U.S. France Russia and China — exercises inordinate power over the selection process. Today the endorsement of the P5 is essential and consequently the veto acquires a particular significance in the SC recommendation.

In 1996, the significance of P5 endorsement was clearly highlighted. As the Council began its consideration of potential candidates, Boutros Boutros Ghali, the incumbent SG, received 14 endorsements in a straw poll, except the U.S.

Boutros Ghali had offended the U.S. with comments on the situation in the Middle East. A week later, a former senior U.N. official, Kofi Annan, a surprise candidate from the Secretariat, received the necessary endorsement of the SC with the backing of the P5.

Similarly, former Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim’s efforts to secure a third term in1981 were vetoed by the Chinese. It is now almost mandatory for the aspirants to the post of SG to undertake visits to the capitals of the P5 to seek their blessings and not say or do anything that would cause them alarm.

This was not always the case. When, in 1951,Trygve Lie of Norway was vetoed by the Soviet Union, as he sought his second term, the U.S. had him appointed through a clear majority of votes in the GA. Given the difficulties that Trygve Lie faced subsequently, especially in dealing with a hostile Soviet Union, it would be unlikely that such an approach would be adopted today.

Although there are suggestions that the SC should recommend more than one candidate, for the sake of transparency and to facilitate democratic choice, the GA has decided in Res 11 of 1946 that it would be desirable for the Council to proffer only one candidate.

Whether this sentiment continues to be shared by many in the GA today with its much wider membership is unclear. While a divisive vote in the GA is always possible, in recent times, the GA has tended to rubber stamp the recommendations of the SC.

While early aspirants to the post did not campaign under spurious pretexts, the need to approach a wide range of countries to seek their blessings is increasingly recognised. Visits to capitals could generate a groundswell of sympathy for a candidate which could influence members of the SC.

The present incumbent, a former Foreign Minister of South Korea, advancing his candidature the first time round, used his position as his country’s representative in the SC to visit as many capitals as possible.

The second time round, he was advised to seek the endorsement of the regional groups as he was mulling presenting his candidature, in particular, the Asia Pacific Group, his own regional group.

This was against the background of some whispered reservations about his performance in the first term, especially by certain countries of the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG).

They were mostly concerns about his perceived lack of fluency in the working languages of the Organisation and the absence of firmness in dealing with difficult issues.

Still, the Asia Pacific Group endorsed him unequivocally, setting in motion a tide of endorsements from the other regional groups. He announced his candidature immediately following his meeting with the Asia Pacific Group.

The WEOGs provided the first two SGs. An assertive developing world demanded the next. U Thant of Burma (now Myanmar) was appointed, despite initial opposition from France.

The Eastern European Group has asserted a claim to the post after Ban because the group has never had this position before and because there are many suitable candidates from the region.

Res 51/241 supports their position. Among the possible Eastern European aspirants are the former U.N. Under-Secretary-General and the Former President of Slovenia, Danilo Turk, the Executive DIrector of UNESCO, Irena Bukova of Bulgaria, EC Commissioner, Kristalina Georgieva of Bulgaria, the Lithuanian President, Dalia Grybauskaite, the vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Monte Negro, Igor Luksic, and the popular Permanent Representative of Romania, Simona Miculescu.

The WEOGs have occupied the post three times – the Asia Pacific twice, Africa twice and Latin America and the Caribbean once. Candidates from the P5s are not considered for the post. Should Eastern Europe come up with a suitable candidate, they are likely to get the post this time.

Given the perceived lack of clarity with regard to the Eastern European candidature, others have begun to test the water.

Among them are, Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia; Helen Clerk, the Administrator of the UNDP and former Prime Minister of New Zealand; Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and former Prime Minister of Portugal; and Michelle Bachelet, former Executive Director of UN Women and current president of Chile.

It is noteworthy that the Non-Aligned Movement, the largest single political grouping of developing nations, has strongly backed the appointment of a woman to succeed Ban.

The general feeling among Member States is that the time for a woman SG has arrived. There does not seem to be a shortage of exceptionally qualified women in the field.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

An unknown medusa-like plankton viewed from a submersible in the Gulf of Mexico, as part of the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration’s Operation Deep Scope 2005. With the increase in the research into and exploitation of marine genetic resources, more and more patents on them are being filed annually. Credit: Dr. Mikhail Matz/public domain

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 29 2015 (IPS)

After almost 10 years of often frustrating negotiations, the U.N. ad hoc committee on BBNJ decided, by consensus, to set in motion a process that will result in work commencing on a legally binding international instrument on the conservation and sustainable use, including benefit sharing, of Biological Diversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction.

Dr. Palitha Kohona. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

As a consequence, the General Assembly is expected to adopt a resolution in the summer of 2015 establishing a preparatory committee to begin work in 2016 which will be mandated to propose the elements of a treaty in 2017, to be adopted by an intergovernmental conference.

The Ad Hoc Working Group, established in 2006, has been meeting regularly since then. In 2010, for the first time, it adopted a set of recommendations which were elaborated methodically until the momentous decision on Saturday.

This decision will impact significantly on the biggest source of biodiversity on the globe.

The political commitment of the global community on BBNJ was clearly stated in the 2012 Rio+20 Outcome Document, “The Future We Want”, largely at the insistence of a small group of countries which included Argentina, Sri Lanka, South Africa and the European Union (EU).

It recognised the importance of an appropriate global mechanism to sustainably manage marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

In 2013, GA resolution A/69/L.29 mandated the UN Ad Hoc Working Group to make recommendations on the scope, parameters and feasibility of an international instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to the 69th Session of the GA.While there are hundreds of thousands of known marine life forms, some scientists suggest that there could actually be millions of others which we will never know. These, including the genetic resources, could bring enormous benefits to humanity, including in the development of vital drugs.

During the past few years our understanding of biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction has advanced exponentially. The critical need to conserve and sustainably use this vast and invaluable resource base is now widely acknowledged.

The water surface covers 70 percent of the earth. This marine environment constitutes over 90 percent of the volume of the earth’s biosphere, nurturing many complex ecosystems important to sustain life and livelihoods on land. Two thirds of this environment is located in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The contribution of oceans to the global economy is estimated to be in the billions of dollars.

While there are hundreds of thousands of known marine life forms, some scientists suggest that there could actually be millions of others which we will never know. These, including the genetic resources, could bring enormous benefits to humanity, including in the development of vital drugs.

With the increase in the research into and exploitation of marine genetic resources, more and more patents based on them are being filed annually.

The value of these patents is estimated to be in the billions of dollars. It is increasingly obvious that mankind must conserve the resources of the oceans and the associated ecosystems and use them sustainably, including for the development of new substances.

At the same time, unprecedented challenges confront the marine environment and ecosystems. Overfishing, pollution, climate change, ocean warming, coral bleach and ocean acidification, to name a few, pose a severe threat to marine biological resources. Many communities and livelihoods dependent on them are at risk.

While 2.8 percent of the world’s oceans are designated as marine protected areas, only 0.79 percent of such areas are located beyond national jurisdiction. In recent times, these protected areas have become a major asset in global efforts to conserve endangered species, habitats and ecosystems.

While the management of areas within national jurisdictions is a matter primarily for states, the areas beyond are the focus of the challenge that confronted the U.N. Ad Hoc Working Group.

Developing countries have insisted that benefits, including financial benefits, from products developed using marine genetic resources extracted from areas beyond national jurisdiction must be shared equitably.

The concept that underpinned this proposition could be said to be an evolution of the common heritage of mankind concept incorporated in UNCLOS.

The Ad-Hoc Working Group acknowledged that UNCLOS, sometimes described as the constitution of the oceans, served as the overarching legal framework for the oceans and seas. Obviously, there was much about the oceans that the world did not know in 1982 when the UNCLOS was concluded.

Given humanity’s considerably better understanding of the oceans at present, especially on the areas beyond national jurisdiction, the majority of participants in the Ad Hoc Working Group pushed for a new legally binding instrument to address the issue of BBNJ.

Last Saturday’s decision underlined that the mandates of existing global and regional instruments and frameworks not be undermined; that duplication be avoided and consistency with UNCLOS maintained.

The challenge before the international community as it approaches the next stage is to identify with care the areas that will be covered by the proposed instrument in order to optimize the goal of conservation of marine biodiversity. It should contribute to building ocean resilience, provide comprehensive protection for ecologically and biologically significant areas, and enable ecosystems time to adapt.

The framework for sharing the benefits of research and developments relating to marine organisms needs to be crafted sensitively. Private corporations which are investing heavily in this area prefer legal certainty and clear workable rules.

An international instrument must establish a framework which includes an overall strategic vision that encompasses the aspirations of both developed and developing countries, particularly in the area of benefit sharing.

Facilitating the exchange of information between States will be essential to achieve the highest standards in conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity, particularly for developing countries. They will need continued capacity building so that they can contribute effectively to the goal of sustainable use of such resources and benefit from scientific and technological developments.

To address the effects of these complex dynamics, the proposed instrument must adopt a global approach, involving both developed and developing countries.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

By Dr. Palitha Kohona
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 2 2014 (IPS)

Sri Lanka will host the World Biodiversity Congress (WBC) Nov. 24-27. Given its long and active history of preserving biodiversity, it would be most appropriate for Sri Lanka to be the next host of this global event, which also marks the U.N.’s Decade on Biodiversity.

The world is confronting massive threats to its biological resources due to climate change, pollution, agricultural chemical usage and pest control, land degradation, deforestation, unbridled development, indiscriminate harvesting of wild stocks, uncontrolled slaughter, accumulating waste, in particular, slow degrading waste, etc.Protecting its biodiversity at a national level has been a key challenge and a series of measures have been taken to protect elephants, a prized national asset.

Sri Lanka, while sharing many of the problems of other countries, remains strongly committed to the environment. It is no surprise that it is a party to many of the major international agreements that address environmental issues, especially biodiversity.

Sri Lanka ratified the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994. In 1979, it became a party to the 1973 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (commonly known as the Bonn Convention) and the 1973 Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The decision adopted by CITES in 1989, in Lausanne, banning the trade in ivory is strictly adhered to by Sri Lanka.

These international agreements have been implemented in Sri Lanka through its own domestic efforts to protect its extensive biodiversity, which is considered to be a unique national asset. Sri Lanka boasts of many endemic species and diverse ecosystems in both its terrestrial and marine environments.

Sri Lanka’s uniquely diverse range of ecosystems range from the wet and semi-dry highlands to the low-lying coast. There are grasslands, wetlands, many types of forests, including wet-zone, dry-zone and mangrove forests, lagoons, and coral reefs.

Furthermore, Sri Lanka, a country of only 65,000 square kilometres, is home to a staggering number of species of animals – some of which are endemic.

Amb. Palitha Kohona. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

There are 91 known species of mammals, 171 species of reptiles and over 106 species of amphibians, 90 of which are endemic. Sri Lanka may be the only country in which you can see both the Earth’s largest land mammal (the elephant, close to 6,000 remain in the wild according to the last count) as well as its largest marine mammal (blue and humpback whales) within a few hours of each other.

From the Sri Lankan leopard to the delicate Ceylon Rose butterfly, Sri Lanka possesses a larger percentage of endemic species than almost any other country of similar or larger land mass and is listed as a global biodiversity hotspot by the IUCN.

Protecting its biodiversity at a national level has been a key challenge and a series of measures have been taken to protect elephants, a prized national asset, including through providing two refuges for orphaned calves and facilitating captive breeding.

The country boasts a long history of training elephants for religious, commercial and domestic purposes. Elephants play a key role in Peraheras (Buddhist religious processions) where they carry the sacred relics of the Buddha with great dignity.

The annual Kandy Perahera could feature over one hundred caparisoned elephants regally parading through the streets of the ancient city of Kandy by torchlight.

The most serious threat to Sri Lankan elephants is human. There are approximately 200 human-caused elephant deaths annually, mostly through gunshots fired by rural farmers acting in self-defence or in retaliation.

The Sri Lankan government has, over the years, enacted legislation that has criminalised the killing of elephants.

The government has also worked closely with conservationists and rural farmers to encourage crops that are not attractive to elephants but are marketable. Ecotourism is fast catching on and will be a major component of the tourism industry.

Sri Lanka is committed to the implementation of the action plans to conserve biological diversity. A National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan (BCAP), prepared in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including the private sector, the IUCN and NGOs, has been adopted.

The BCAP identifies the key challenges facing Sri Lanka which include, deforestation in the wet zones, development of wetlands, overfishing, the destruction of mangroves and coral reefs, the over use of agricultural chemicals and the impact of agriculture on plant diversity.

The BCAP also includes multiple recommendations for action, some of which are quite specific.

For example, on plant diversity, the BCAP has recommended that the government, in partnership with the Bandaranaike Memorial Ayurvedic Research Institute, establish five medicinal plant reserves.

The national medicine system (ayurveda) relies extensively on native plant species. A government policy paper, Haritha Lanka (Green Lanka), seeks to accelerate the greening of Sri Lanka, including by increasing the forest cover to embrace 35 percent of the country.

Sri Lanka has also enacted detailed national legislation to protect its fauna and flora. Central to these efforts are the 2009 amendments to the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance (FFPO) and the 1937 Forest Ordinance (FO).

The FFPO established six categories of wildlife reserves in which wildlife is protected by curtailing human activities. These protected areas, reflected in the policy paper, Green Lanka, constitute around 25 percent of the total land mass of Sri Lanka. The government has proposed to enlarge this area to 35 percent of the national land mass.

The FFPO also includes protection for endangered species and requires a permit for the export of any wild animal, plant or their parts from the country.

The FO created a system of reserve forests. These forests, usually in biologically diverse zones, are protected from felling, trespassing by cattle and other similarly disruptive activities.

Sri Lanka has also enacted legislation to address other issues, including the conservation of coastal areas, the regulation of fisheries, the establishment of national heritage wilderness sites (the Sinharaja Forest, a UNESCO listed preserve, is a unique tropical rain forest), and control over invasive species of plants and animals. A major turtle reserve provides protection to a beach where turtles have come to lay eggs for centuries.

Sri Lanka has actively participated in the work of the U.N. Open Working Group developing the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. Included among the 17 goals identified is a goal on biodiversity, which the country supported throughout the negotiations.

It also supported the goal on the oceans, which contains targets aimed at the conservation and sustainable use of ocean, sea and other marine resources. Sri Lanka is the co-chair of the UN Ad Hoc Working Group on Marine Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction.

Incidentally, the WBC in Colombo, November 2014, will also coincide with the whale watching season in Sri Lanka.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt:

As the United Nations reinforces the important role of youth in its proposed post-2015 development agenda, the World Conference on Youth (WCY) held in Sri Lanka last month adopted a historic declaration, including a proposal for the creation of a separate Youth Department/Office in the world body.

The Colombo Declaration on Youth is now recognised as an important milestone in the efforts to mainstream youth concerns and aspirations, as well as youth engagement in global and national decision making processes.

The declaration, which has been formally presented to the U.N. secretary-general, the president of the U.N. General Assembly and the president of the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), has been received with much praise and enthusiasm.

The Declaration makes several important practical recommendations, such as the setting up of a permanent Youth Department/Office within the U.N. and also calls on the world body to dedicate a day to skills development, a critical symbolic measure to enhance the employability of youth.

The recommendations that emerged, and which were reflected in the Declaration include: inclusive youth led-development, poverty eradication, food and nutrition security, equal access to quality education, promotion of healthy lives, access to quality healthcare, full employment, entrepreneurship opportunities, gender equality, environmental sustainability, youth-centered urbanisation, peace, reconciliation and ending violence, good governance and accountability, inclusive youth participation in decision making and ending systemic inequalities.

Many of these recommendations could seamlessly feed into the U.N. Open Working Group deliberations, which will formulate the post-2015 development agenda.

The conference attracted 32 ministers and deputy ministers of youth affairs and senior policy makers from around the world, high-level officials from the U.N. system (including the president of the 68th U.N. General Assembly, Dr. John Ashe, the U.N. secretary-general’s special envoy on Youth, Ahmad Alhendawi), diplomats from a range of countries, 118 representatives from national youth organisations, civil society, the private sector and the academia. In total, 163 countries were represented at the conference.

As the discussions progressed, it was evident that the assembled youth were willing to temper their idealism with realistic pragmatism, thus contributing to a document that may stand the test of time.

Since the first WCY held in 1936, this was the first time that the world’s policy makers and youth teamed up to produce a common declaration. It is understood that the Declaration will be given effect consistent with national laws, policies, customs and religious principles.

While officially opening the conference in a magnificent facility in the southern port city of Hambantota, Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa said, “Engaging youth and consulting with them results in better policy formulation and implementation, including evaluation that helps fill policy gaps.

“Young people are not simply the recipients of services but are active stakeholders in shaping the future of their communities. We, as leaders, must, therefore, be committed to providing avenues for the young people to play their rightful roles in crafting the future.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a special message to the WCY, said, “This is a critical time. We are working closely with Member States, civil society, academia, the private sector, the media and people like you – the next generation of global leaders – to develop a blueprint for people and the planet, for the future we want.

It is vital that we draw from the energy and initiative of young people. You can bring fresh perspectives to advance peace, development and human rights around the world.”

In an inspiring, unrehearsed statement, Ashe encouraged the youth of the world to get involved in processes that are affecting them now and will affect them in the future.

In the run-up to the conference, Sri Lanka’s youth affairs and skills development ministry established an International Youth Task Force (IYTF) to advise the Sri Lankan government on all aspects of preparations for the WCY.

Comprised of 10 young leaders from around the world representing established global youth organisations, as well as 10 Sri Lankan youth leaders, including members of the Youth Parliament, the IYTF made key recommendations on the structure and content of the conference.

Months of consultations preceded the formulation of the draft Declaration, particularly at the U.N. headquarters in New York and other regional centres, with the effective participation of youth leaders, civil society and diplomats.

Instead of deliberating separately, as is often the case, young people and policy makers at WCY2014 engaged in collective exploration of the conference’s themes, which served to strengthen the joint outcome.

Participants demonstrated much goodwill, seeking compromises even on issues where the goals of different interest groups seemed to clash.

The Colombo Declaration on Youth is now recognised as an important milestone in the efforts to mainstream youth concerns and aspirations and youth engagement in global and national decision making processes.

*Ambassador Palitha Kohona is Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations

The UN Ad Hoc Open ended Informal Working Group on ‘biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction’ (WG), which was initially convened in 2006, had its first meeting this year in New York from April 1 – 4.

This time, the WG had been entrusted with a specific mandate by UNGA Resolution 68/70 to make recommendations on the scope, parameters and feasibility of an international instrument that would create a regulatory regime for marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (BBNJ) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

There will be two further meetings of the WG. The meeting in April attracted substantial participation from states, international organisations and civil society. Civil society participated proactively in the discussions.

UNGA Resolution 68/70 reflected the international community’s commitment made in the Rio+20 final document, “The future we want”, to address urgently, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

It was apparent from their statements that an overwhelming number of delegations, especially the EU and the members of the G-77 and China, were supportive of negotiating a new implementing agreement under the UNCLOS to address gaps in the legal and regulatory mechanisms for the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ and these delegations proceeded to identify areas that may be included in such a mechanism.

They underlined that there should be no duplication of existing instruments. On the other hand, significant lack of enthusiasm for a legal regulatory mechanism was expressed by some key delegations who continued to emphasize strengthening the implementation of existing instruments to achieve the same objective, including through better coordination and, where necessary, relying on UN General Assembly resolutions.

By the end of the meeting, the co-chairs had compiled a list running in to over four pages of subject matter that states wished to see covered in a future instrument and the reservations of the others. This list will provide the substantial basis for discussions at the next meeting of the WG in June.

The envisaged instrument will constitute a vital elaboration of the legal framework relating to the ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction, in effect, the area still not fully regulated by the legal regime applicable to “The Common Heritage of Mankind”.

At the time the UNCLOS was negotiated, even though it sought to cover almost every aspect of the seas and the oceans, (In Ambassador Tommy Koh’s view, the UNCLOS was the new constitution of the oceans.), knowledge of BBNJ was limited.

Today we possess much more detailed knowledge of the vast biological content of the oceans, including on the ocean floor and sub soil. In the view of many delegations, a future instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ would encompass the water column beyond national jurisdiction, and the areas of the seabed and the sub soil beyond national jurisdiction.

The existing UNCLOS regime and subsequent instruments under it (and other instruments relating to the seas and oceans) were considered by many to be inadequate for this vast area which promises enormous potential benefits to humanity, including commercial possibilities.

As the Economist recently pointed out, the oceans produce three trillion dollars worth of goods and services annually and are of untold value for the earth’s ecology. This huge life sustaining asset must be utilised with the interests of the current and future generations in mind.

The majority of the delegations focused their interventions on the “Area” as defined in the UNCLOS. This area contains a significant part of the world’s biomass, and as it became evident during the BBNJ work-shops held in 2013, this area and the water column could contain a major share of the world’s bio-diversity.

The objective of a new instrument would be multi dimensional – the conservation and sustainable utilisation of this vast resource for the benefit of humanity, as well as equitable benefit sharing from such utilisation.

The difficult issue of benefit sharing relating to pharmaceutical and related advances made resulting from research on biological material obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction will need careful consideration as discussions progress, especially where intellectual property rights are involved.

The question of managing the oceans to conserve biological material while sustainably using them and establishing marine protected areas was also discussed. The long term benefits of marine protected areas is being acknowledged more and more. The concept of area based management has been linked to the need for detailed science based criteria.

The areas to be subject to such management must be identified keeping in mind the commercial benefits and the goal of conservation.

The question of access to and benefit sharing of marine genetic material mined or harvested from the areas covered by such an instrument and further developed needs to be addressed consistent with established principles.

Many delegations articulated the view that this area should not be treated as a new frontier for uncontrolled exploitation where the genetic resources are ravaged and the weak are excluded. The relevant genetic material has to be defined in a practical manner to facilitate identification.

Perhaps the broad model of the Seabed Authority may be adapted for use in this context in developing a mechanism for this purpose.

Alongside the discussion of the principles relating to access and benefit sharing, it would be necessary to build a structure that would facilitate the enhancement of the technical skills of countries, some of whom lack skills even for the purpose of identifying the benefits which they could share.

As was heard during the workshops last year, the technological skill levels and scientific capabilities that can be deployed for research and development with regard to BBNJ are limited to a small number of countries today.

Many delegations acknowledged that the costs incurred and resources expended in conducting research and in developing new products need to be kept in mind but this should not mean that benefits gained from exploiting the biomass from ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction should be limited to a few. This will be an important aspect to be addressed at future discussions.

Many delegations took the view that there should be an obligation for all states to cooperate in the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

*Dr Palitha Kohona is Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section. The Working Group was co-chaired by Dr Liesbeth Lijnzaad of the Netherlands and Ambassador Kohona.