NEW DELHI: Farmers across India have blocked roads and railways in a nationwide shutdown to protest new farm bills, which they say will leave them at the mercy of market forces.
Hundreds of farmer organizations across India supported by opposition parties are protesting new legislation that was passed on Tuesday despite resistance from all opposition parties. The protest is concentrated in the country’s north, the “food bowl of India,” where farm yields are high.
“Farmers, who are already in a precarious situation, face new uncertainty with the bills, which leave us at the whims and fancies of market forces,” Sunil Pradhan of the Indian Farmers Union in the northern Uttar Pradesh state told Arab News.
He is protesting, along hundreds of others, in Noida city.
“How can we trust the words of the government that the market will be good for us? We have seen its past schemes, which sound good on paper but which actually turn out to be hollow,” Pradhan said.
The opposition wanted the new bills to be subject to vote, but the government did not allow it.
“The haste with which the government passed the bills without going in for voting on such crucial matters raises questions about the intent of the government,” Satish Mishra, a political analyst from the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, told Arab News.
The new legislation exposes the agriculture sector to market forces. It has a provision to allow farmers to sell their produce directly to private players and allow corporate investment in farms. Until now, produce prices have been fixed by the government under the Minimum Support Price (MSP), which is usually higher than market rates.
Farmers fear that once the free market assumes a bigger role in the agriculture sector, the government would withdraw from the MSP.
The largest protests have been held in the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, with farmers blocking roads and railway tracks.
“If we don’t protest, our survival will be at stake. The government cannot withdraw its hands from the procurement, and we cannot be left at the whims of the market forces,” Balbir Singh Rajewal, the Punjab-based leader of the Indian Farmers Union, told Arab News.
Jagdish Awana, a Haryana-based farmer, raised questions why Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not consult the main stakeholders while introducing the reform.
“Modi has been in power for the last six years. He never discussed these reforms with farmers. Suddenly, during the pandemic, when people are struggling for their livelihood, he brings in such a far-reaching change that will disturb everything that has been built for decades,” Awana said.
In response to the protests, Modi said on Friday that some actors are deliberately confusing the farmers and telling them lies about the bill.
“Some people…these days are engaged in confusing the farmers because of their political selfishness. These people are spreading rumors,” he said in a meeting with the ruling party workers in Delhi.
“In the name of farmers and laborers, governments were formed many times in the country, but what did they get? Just a tangled web of promises and laws, a trap that neither the farmer nor the laborer could understand,” the prime minister said.
According to the opposition Congress party, which supports the protests, the Modi regime is determined to “enslave” the farmers.
“The new agriculture laws will enslave our farmers,” Rahul Gandhi, the Congress party’s former president, said in a Twitter post on Friday.
Punjab-based agriculture expert Devinder Sharma said that farmers fear the new legislation will pave the way for the corporatization of the agriculture sector.
“Farmers fear that the new bill will lead to the corporatization of agriculture. They will be pushed out and deprived of the assured prices that they get for wheat and paddy, the main staple food in the country,” he told Arab News.
“Only 6 percent of farmers get MSP from the government, and the rest of India is dependent on the market. If the markets are really benevolent, then tell me why Indian agriculture is in deep crisis. The government should have expanded the model that benefits 6 percent of farmers to the rest of the country rather than the other way around.”
Protests are also taking place in the southern Indian states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and the eastern Indian states of Bihar, Orissa and Bengal.
“The bill keeps in mind the benefits of the market, not the larger interests of the farmers. Bihar, which removed MSP in 2006, has seen the fate of farmers changed. The situation worsened, and that’s why many people migrate from Bihar to other states to work in the field,” Sharma said.
According to Professor Ronki Ram, a political analyst from Punjab University, the protests may lead to a realignment of political forces in India’s agriculture-dominated states.
“The farmers’ solidarity will have its political impact. This might lead to a new political alternative and a realignment of political forces in north India, where farmers hold sway,” he said.
Indian farmers block roads, railways in nationwide shutdown to protest reform
https://arab.news/vrpxg
Indian farmers block roads, railways in nationwide shutdown to protest reform
- Farmers demonstrate against government’s move to open agriculture to private and corporate sector
- Protest is concentrated in country’s north - the “food bowl of India”
UN talks struggle for breakthrough on plastics treaty as deadline looms
- South Korea is hosting delegates from about 175 countries at the fifth and final meeting of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
- Nations which produce petrochemicals, such as Saudi Arabia, oppose efforts to cap plastic production
BUSAN, South Korea: The chairman of talks aiming for an international treaty to rein in pollution from plastics issued a document on Friday outlining measures that could furnish the basis of a pact, in an attempt to spur discussions as a Dec. 1 deadline approaches.
South Korea is hosting delegates from about 175 countries at the fifth and final meeting of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to agree globally binding rules on plastics, but this week's talks had moved at glacial pace.
The document, issued by committee chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso and viewed by Reuters, featured ideas such as a global list of plastic products to be managed and a financial mechanism to help fund developing countries act on the treaty.
"The high and rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution ... represent a serious environmental and human health problem," the document said.
It mentioned, but did not confirm, some of the most divisive tasks, such as whether the treaty will set a global target to cut output of primary plastic polymers or skip it altogether, and left undecided how rich nations would contribute to a fund.
"A global target to reduce plastic production is in (the document)," said Graham Forbes, who led the Greenpeace delegation to the talks.
"Keeping this in the final treaty text must be a redline for any country serious about ending plastic pollution."
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) representing makers of plastic, backs governments' efforts to finalise the deal, said its spokesperson, Stewart Harris, adding that the body wanted to hasten a circular economy for plastics.
Nations which produce petrochemicals, such as Saudi Arabia, oppose efforts to cap plastic production, despite the protests of low- and middle-income nations that bear the brunt of plastic pollution.
While supporting an international treaty, the petrochemical industry has also been vocal in urging governments to avoid setting mandatory plastic production caps in favour of efforts to reduce plastic waste, such as recycling.
The chairman's move came after several participants had expressed frustration at the slow pace of the talks, amid disagreements over procedure, multiple proposals and some efforts to return to ground covered in the past.
International court to begin hearings that may shape global climate litigation
- Court to give opinion on legal obligations around climate
- ICJ opinion is non-binding but likely to influence litigation
While the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) are non-binding, they are legally and politically significant. Experts say the ICJ’s eventual opinion on climate change will likely be cited in climate change-driven lawsuits in courts from Europe to Latin America and beyond.
The hearings begin a week after developing nations denounced as woefully inadequate an agreement reached at the COP29 summit for countries to provide $300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035 to help poorer nations cope with climate change.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and the environment, said it was imperative fossil fuels be phased out and more money provided to poorer nations bearing the brunt of climate change, such as his Pacific island nation.
“We’re not seeing that in the outcome of the COPs,” Regenvanu told Reuters.
“We are hoping (the ICJ) can provide a new avenue to break through the inertia we experience when trying to talk about climate justice,” he added.
Fiji’s Attorney General Graham Leung called the hearings a historic opportunity for small island developing states in their quest for climate change justice.
CLIMATE LITIGATION
Climate litigation is on the rise.
Earlier this year, Europe’s top human rights court ruled that the Swiss government had violated the rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change. But it also rejected two other cases, pointing to the complexities of the growing wave of climate litigation.
Vanuatu, one of the small developing nations that pushed for an ICJ advisory opinion, says it disproportionately suffers the effects of climate change as a result of increasingly intense storms and rising sea levels.
Vanuatu will be the first of 98 countries and twelve international organizations to present arguments to the ICJ, also known as the World Court. It is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving international disputes between states and can be tasked by the UN General Assembly to give advisory opinions.
In 2023, the assembly asked it for a formal opinion on questions including the legal obligations of states to protect the climate system and whether large states that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions may be liable for damages, in particular to small island nations.
“As COP29 failed to provide a clear direction for climate justice and ambition, any developments from the ICJ will now only become more weighty,” said Lea Main-Klingst, a lawyer with ClientEarth.
Aside from small island states and numerous Western and developing countries, the court will also hear from the world’s top two emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and China. Oil producer group OPEC will also give its views.
The hearings will start at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) local time on Monday and run until Dec. 13. The court’s opinion will be delivered in 2025.
Top UN court to open unprecedented climate hearings next week
- Representatives from more than 100 countries, organizations will make submissions before the International Court of Justice
- Activists hope the legal opinion from the ICJ judges will have far-reaching consequences in the fight against climate change
THE HAGUE: The world’s top court will next week start unprecedented hearings aimed at finding a “legal blueprint” for how countries should protect the environment from damaging greenhouse gases — and what the consequences are if they do not.
From Monday, lawyers and representatives from more than 100 countries and organizations will make submissions before the International Court of Justice in The Hague — the highest number ever.
Activists hope the legal opinion from the ICJ judges will have far-reaching consequences in the fight against climate change.
But others fear the UN-backed request for a non-binding advisory opinion will have limited impact — and it could take the UN’s top court months, or even years, to deliver.
The hearings at the Peace Palace come days after a bitterly negotiated climate deal at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, which said developed countries must provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 for climate finance.
Poorer countries have slammed the pledge from wealthy polluters as insultingly low and the final deal failed to mention a global pledge to move away from planet-heating fossil fuels.
The UN General Assembly last year adopted a resolution in which it referred two key questions to the ICJ judges.
First, what obligations did states have under international law to protect the Earth’s climate system from greenhouse gas emissions?
Second, what are the legal consequences under these obligations, where states, “by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?“
The second question was also linked to the legal responsibilities of states for harm caused to small, more vulnerable countries and their populations.
This applied especially to countries under threat from rising sea levels and harsher weather patterns in places like the Pacific Ocean.
“Climate change for us is not a distant threat,” said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) group.
“It is reshaping our lives right now. Our islands are at risk. Our communities face disruptive change at a rate and scale that generations before us have not known,” Prasad told journalists a few days before the start of the hearings.
Launching a campaign in 2019 to bring the climate issue to the ICJ, Prasad’s group of 27 students spearheaded consensus among Pacific island nations including his own native Fiji, before it was taken to the UN.
Last year, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion.
Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the US and Swiss-based Center for International Environmental Law, said climate advocates did not expect the ICJ’s opinion “to provide very specific answers.”
Instead, she predicted the court would provide “a legal blueprint in a way, on which more specific questions can be decided,” she said.
The judges’ opinion, which she expected sometime next year, “will inform climate litigation on domestic, national and international levels.”
“One of the questions that is really important, as all of the legal questions hinge on it, is what is the conduct that is unlawful,” said Chowdhury.
“That is very central to these proceedings,” she said.
Some of the world’s largest carbon polluters — including the world’s top three greenhouse gas emitters, China, the United States and India — will be among some 98 countries and 12 organizations and groups expected to make submissions.
On Monday, proceedings will open with a statement from Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group which also represents the vulnerable island states of Fiji, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands as well as Indonesia and East Timor.
At the end of the two-week hearings, organizations including the EU and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are to give their statements.
“With this advisory opinion, we are not only here to talk about what we fear losing,” the PISFCC’s Prasad said.
“We’re here to talk about what we can protect and what we can build if we stand together,” he said.
Indonesian rescuers search for missing in buried cars and bus after landslide in Sumatra
- The death toll from one landslide on Wednesday on a hilly interprovince road rose to nine from seven
- Flash floods hit the provincial city of Medan on Friday although waters have receded in some areas
JAKARTA: Indonesian rescuers on Friday searched for survivors buried in three cars and bus at the base of a cliff after flash floods and landslides in North Sumatra province killed at least 29 people.
Torrential rain for the past week in the province has triggered flash floods and landslides in four different districts, Indonesia’s disaster agency has said.
The death toll from one landslide on Wednesday on a hilly interprovince road rose to nine from seven, Hadi Wahyudi, the spokesperson of North Sumatra police told Reuters on Friday.
At least five cars, one bus, and one truck were trapped at the base of a cliff following the landslide. On Friday, police and rescuers focused their search for missing people on three cars and one bus buried in mud.
“We still don’t know how many people who were still trapped,” Hadi said.
In other districts, landslides over the weekend killed 20 people and rescuers will keep searching for two missing people until Saturday.
Flash floods hit the provincial city of Medan on Friday although waters have receded in some areas, said Sariman Sitorus, spokesperson for the local search agency.
The floods forced a delay in votes for regional elections in some areas in Medan on Wednesday.
Extreme weather is expected in Indonesia toward the end of 2024, as the La Nina phenomenon increases rainfalls across the tropical archipelago, the country’s weather agency has warned.
UK transport secretary quits over decade-old cellphone fraud case
- The resignation came hours after Sky News and The Times of London newspaper reported that Haigh had been charged with fraud
- After she found the phone and switched it back on, she was called in for questioning by police
LONDON: British Transport Minister Louise Haigh resigned on Friday over a decade-old fraud conviction for claiming her cellphone had been stolen.
In a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Haigh said “I remain totally committed to our political project, but I now believe it will be best served by my supporting you from outside government.”
“I appreciate that whatever the facts of the matter, this issue will inevitably be a distraction from delivering on the work of this government and the policies to which we are both committed,” she wrote.
The resignation came hours after Sky News and The Times of London newspaper reported that Haigh had been charged with fraud after she reported that a work cellphone had been stolen after she was mugged in 2013. She later said she had mistakenly listed it among the stolen items.
After she found the phone and switched it back on, she was called in for questioning by police. Haigh pleaded guilty to fraud by misrepresentation and was given a conditional discharge.
In a statement before her resignation, Haigh said that “under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty -– despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain. The magistrates accepted all of these arguments and gave me the lowest possible outcome (a discharge) available.”
Haigh, 37, has represented a district in Sheffield, northern England, in Parliament since 2015 and was named to the key transport post after Starmer’s center-left Labour party was elected in July.
