Towards a UN IYA 2009 Resolution

Claus Madsen, ESO

The Background

The XXV IAU General Assembly in Sydney August 2003The UNESCO 33C/Resolution 25, 2005The XXVI IAU General Assembly in Prague, August 2006Meeting at UNESCO, August 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006

The Background

The XXV IAU General Assembly in Sydney August 2003The UNESCO 33C/Resolution 25, 2005The XXVI IAU General Assembly in Prague, August 2006Meeting at UNESCO, August 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006

The Background

The XXV IAU General Assembly in Sydney August 2003The UNESCO 33C/Resolution 25, 2005The XXVI IAU General Assembly in Prague, August 2006Meeting at UNESCO, August 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006

The Background

The XXV IAU General Assembly in Sydney August 2003The UNESCO 33C/Resolution 25, 2005The XXVI IAU General Assembly in Prague, August 2006Meeting at UNESCO, August 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006

The Background

The XXV IAU General Assembly in Sydney August 2003The UNESCO 33C/Resolution 25, 2005The XXVI IAU General Assembly in Prague, August 2006Meeting at UNESCO, August 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006

The Background

The XXV IAU General Assembly in Sydney August 2003The UNESCO 33C/Resolution 25, 2005The XXVI IAU General Assembly in Prague, August 2006Meeting at UNESCO, August 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006Planned submission to the UN, October 2006!!

Do we need a UN resolution?

– will ‘elevate’ the activities and increase their visibility– will mobilise resources

A UN endorsement is highly desirable, in particular to enable 3rd World Activities

A UN Resolution is a policy initiative and the process to secure it is a political process

So what happened?

– Reluctance among many industrialised (Western) nations regarding International Years

– The European Union CFSP (Presidency Coordination)– The Australian/Canadian Resolution (2006)– ‘Thumbs down’ from the US

How to obtain a Resolution?

Proposals for Resolutions are submitted to the UN GeneralAssembly through one of the Standing Committees

– The General Committee – The 2nd (The Economic and Financial Committee)– The 3rd (The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee– The 4th Committee (The Special Political and Decolonization Committee)

The proposal will be submitted to the 62th General Assembly by October 2007

Main Criteria

A subject proposed for an international year should be consistent withthe purposes and principles of the United Nations as stated in its Charter.

It should be of priority concern to all or the majority of countries andshould contribute to the development of international cooperation insolving global problems, in particular those affecting developingcountries.

It should involve action at the international and national levels and shouldbe expected to generate significant follow-up at both levels in the formof new activities or the strengthening of existing ones.

Each international year should have objectives that are likely to lead toidentifiable and practical results.

Engineering a Majority

– Secure as many ‘yes’ votes as possible– Enlist as many proposal co-sponsors as possible (and

key actors in the UN); Group 77– Avoid ‘no’ votes

The Good News!

2005

International Year of Physics

International Year of Microcredit

International Year of Sport and Physical Education

2006

International Heliophysical Year

International Year of Deserts and Desertification

2007

International Polar Year

The Good News!

2008

International Year of Sanitation (ECOSOC)

International Year of the Potato

International Year of Planet Earth

2009

International Year of Natural Fibres

International Year of Reconciliation

International Year of Astronomy (to be proposed)

The Good News!

2010

International Year of Biodiversity

2011

International Year of Forests (proposed to the 61st GA, not yet adopted)

2010

International Year of Biodiversity

2011

International Year of Forests (proposed to the 61st GA, not yet adopted)

The Lobbying Process

Science

Policy Level

National level

Science

Ministryof FA

Ministryof FA

Policy Level

MS UNmissionsMS UN

missions

UN level

Essentials

– Time (before October)– Resolution Leadership– Timing of individual actions– Engage the political system, but get to its heart– Stay on the case; the ‘ Piece of Cake Syndrome’– A collective effort which must be orchestrated

Country StatusAustralia Australia will probably not vote against a resolution proposalBrazil Brazil is ready to co-sponsor the resolutionCanada Negative decision cannot be ruled outChile Action pending (late March)Czech Republic Positive reaction. Possible co-sponsor?Denmark Positive reaction. Rejection of IYA resolution proposal unlikelyEgypt Will require follow upFrance Will require follow upGermany Will require follow upIraq Time permitting, follow up might be useful (Arab League)Italy The Italian initiative is pivotal for the project. Japan Japan is ready to co-sponsor the resolutionLuxembourg Reasons for optimism with rejection of IYA resolution proposal

unlikely

Country StatusNigeria Time permitting, follow up might be usefulPortugal Reasons for optimism but will require follow upRussian Fed. Positive reaction, but will require follow upSouth Africa Reasons for optimism with rejection of IYA resolution proposal

unlikely. Co-sponsor?Switzerland Reasons for optimism with rejection of IYA resolution proposal

unlikelyTunesia Will require follow up, their strong involvement in UNAWE

suggest potential as co-sponsorVenezuela Time permitting, follow up might be usefulUK Potentially difficult!USA Will require follow up. Negative decision cannot be ruled out

Country StatusAngola Time permitting, follow up might be usefulColumbia Time permitting, follow up might be usefulEU UN WG Promising….(CONUN)

And if we fail….Plan B!