News Papers EDITORIALS - 23 NOVEMBER 2016

✌✌✌✌✌    THE HINDU    ✌✌✌✌

☝☝ Pitching reform at the BCCI  ☝☝ 

It is disconcerting that the administrative affairs of Indian cricket should continue to be embroiled in controversy in the midst of a packed and interesting home season. Not many can complain about the manner in which cricketing matters are being managed, but the intransigence shown by the office-bearers of the Board of Control for Cricket in India in not constructively accepting the reforms recommended by the Supreme Court-appointed R.M. Lodha Committee is getting to be tiresome. These recommendations, including those barring ministers, bureaucrats and anyone above the age of 70 from holding office in cricket’s administrative body, are now binding on the BCCI after the Supreme Court accepted the report. The Justice Lodha Committee has been grappling with a set of reluctant office-bearers who claim they cannot force the State units affiliated to the BCCI to accept all the norms. Some associations are said to be unwilling to accept the age ceiling and the one-State, one-vote norm. In its latest report, the Committee has asked for the removal of all those who fall foul of its bar on various grounds. In addition, it has asked for an observer to be appointed to ‘guide’ the Chief Executive Officer in running the BCCI, particularly with regard to contracts, transparency norms and the audit of domestic, international and IPL matches.

The question arises whether the Lodha Committee should have named G.K. Pillai, a former Union Home Secretary, as the observer. As it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether an observer is needed, the recommendation of a specific name was both unnecessary and puzzling. While the time may have come to enforce the norms accepted by the Supreme Court, any suggestion that the Committee favours drastic action rather than appealing to reason should be avoided. It is apparent that some unsavoury developments have upset the panel. These include the BCCI taking decisions out of sync with the panel’s recommendations at its Annual General Meeting in September, interpreting a directive to stop the disbursal of funds to State associations as the demand for a total freeze on its bank accounts, and allegedly trying to goad the International Cricket Council into raising the question whether there was governmental interference in the BCCI’s functioning, a situation that may come with the threat of derecognition. Yet, the situation is not beyond rescue. The Board’s president and secretary have until December 3 to report compliance with the Committee’s norms. While the BCCI leadership will have to shed its seeming reluctance, the Supreme Court has to find a way to bring in transparency and reform without resorting to heavy-handed action against a body that must function with a measure of autonomy.

☝☝  No complacency on Zika  ☝☝ 

The World Health Organisation has declared that the Zika virus no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. This brings to an end the heightened global focus on the virus that has caused about 2,300 confirmed cases of microcephaly (a birth defect manifesting in a smaller head size) since May 2015. The WHO had declared the Zika virus a public health emergency on February 1, considering the high number of neurological disorders reported in Brazil and a similar cluster in French Polynesia in 2014. Among the reasons cited were the unknown causal link between the virus and microcephaly and neurological complications, the possibility of its global spread, lack of vaccines and diagnostic tools, and the lack of immunity to the virus in newly affected countries. The link between Zika and microcephaly was established in May, the hunt for a potent vaccine and reliable diagnostic tool has begun, and scientists have been able to find the routes of transmission. However, the global risk assessment has not changed. The spread of Zika to 67 countries and territories is a grim reminder of the lack of immunity against the virus and the abundance of mosquito vectors. A dozen countries have reported local transmission.

Despite the link between the Zika virus infection and microcephaly being well established, the entire spectrum of challenges posed by the disease is not known. The WHO Emergency Committee has called for sustained research and dedicated resources to address the long-term challenges posed by babies born with microcephaly, but signalling the end of the global emergency may lead to lowering of the global alert. There should be no setback to funding, the global search for effective vaccines and diagnostic tests, and creating awareness about the risk of sexual transmission. For instance, it is not clear why more babies were born with microcephaly in northeast Brazil compared to the rest of the country or why the country had a higher caseload than others. This information is crucial to understanding the link between Zika infection and microcephaly, and thereby to containing incidence where the mosquito vector is predominant. Medical journals should continue to provide free and immediate access to papers on the Zika virus, which played a crucial role in information-sharing. The WHO has said it is “not downgrading the importance of Zika” and that its “response is here to stay”. It now needs to ensure that vigilance remains high despite the decline in incidence.

✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

☝☝ COP22 - A united climate message for Donald Trump ☝☝

By the standards of recent climate-change negotiations, this was a tame affair, the just-concluded 22nd Conference of Parties (COP22), the assembly of 196 countries and a regional grouping, signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, at Marrakech, Morocco. Yet, it was an important milestone in the global effort to address climate change. The climate negotiations in Marrakech had two major tasks: to set the ball rolling for the rule-making process, and to coalesce and account for all the efforts and measures being taken by companies, cities and regions to address climate change. A year on after adoption of the Paris Agreement, the landmark climate agreement entered into force, and at Marrakech, countries agreed to finalise the rule book for implementation by December 2018.

Businesses, investors, cities and local governments announced new commitments that were in keeping with the pledge to restrict temperature rise to well below 2° Celsius. Initiatives and financial support for clean technologies; building capacity, and boosting water and food security were launched. In a political declaration, ‘Marrakech Action Proclamation for Our Climate and Sustainable Development’, all countries pledged to tackle climate change. It was significant not just because it is a commitment made at the highest levels of government but because it was a clear, unified message to the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, who had called climate change a hoax.

But the road ahead is not easy. Two years is a relatively short span of time for 197 parties to evolve a consensus, and the closing hours at Marrakech made evident that consensus still eludes many issues. COP22 reaffirmed the world’s commitment to act on climate change, now begins the hard part.