Source: Dawn.com
3 August 2011, BEIRUT: A dispute between Lebanon and Israel over their maritime boundary has heated up and sparked fears of conflict as both countries move to assert sovereignty over an area potentially rich in gas.
Tension rose last month after Israel’s cabinet approved a map of the country’s proposed maritime borders with Lebanon and submitted it to the United Nations, which has been asked to mediate.
The map conflicts with one submitted by Lebanon to the UN last year and that gives Israel less territory.
The Lebanese say their map is in line with an armistice accord drawn up in 1949 and not contested by Israel.
They also challenge Israel’s assertion that an accord signed in 2007 between Cyprus and Lebanon sets the same boundaries as those agreed between the Jewish state and Cyprus in 2010.
Neither side for now appears willing to budge on the issue, especially given the discovery of important energy reserves near the disputed area which could generate billions of dollars.
Energy Minister Gebran Bassil told AFP that Lebanon’s new cabinet, in which the militant group Hezbollah plays a key role, was rushing to approve a decree setting out the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
An EEZ is a sea zone that gives a state the right to explore its maritime resources.
“Israel cannot arbitrarily flout international law and aggress Lebanon by creating a zone of conflict in our waters,” Bassil said.
“It’s not simply a question of them tracing a line and stating what’s theirs.” Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, whose party fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006, also waded into the dispute last week warning the Jewish state against any attempt to plunder Lebanon’s offshore gas and oil reserves.
The United Nations and diplomats are urging both sides to exercise restraint and to resolve the matter at the negotiating table. The disputed zone consists of about 854 square kilometres (330 square miles).
“It is common to the point of routine for neighbouring countries to have … overlapping claims,” a senior State Department official said, asking not to be named.
“There are many mechanisms available to both countries to resolve this problem peacefully,” he said. “These mechanisms range all the way from direct negotiations to binding arbitration.”
He and other diplomats interviewed by AFP said that even though the rhetoric over the border was heating up, it was in no one’s interest to start a conflict given the economic interests at stake.
They also pointed out that companies involved in gas exploitation will shun the area should the dispute escalate.
For the complete article, please see Dawn.com.
Colombia’s long-standing internal conflict and the country’s contribution to climate change share one common root cause: land concentration. Policies to strengthen access to land and to ensure sustainable land use might therefore hold the key to promoting peacebuilding in Colombia, while simultaneously reducing emissions.
As disasters wreak havoc all over South Asia, health impacts have increasingly emerged as a major concern for communities and governments in the region. It underscores the need for concerted efforts towards building synergies between the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, particularly now, in the post-disaster reconstruction phase, to ensure “building back better” and future disaster prevention.
In the Inner Mongolian county of Horinger, Northwestern China, afforestation efforts have transformed a barren, dusty landscape into a pine forest. Planting trees has diminished the sandstorms, boosted biodiversity and improved the environment generally. As the climate emergency worsens, the potential for planted trees to draw carbon out of the atmosphere is being re-examined. What can the world learn from the Chinese experience with afforestation?
Two events in August 2019 underlined the complexity of paving the way to a climate-neutral world: the publishing of the new IPCC report and the Amazon fires. Both events demand that climate diplomats move beyond a narrowed focus on energy in decarbonisation debates.