📰 Moss serves as a cheap pollution monitor
The bioindicator responds to pollution by changing shape, density or disappearing, allowing scientists to calculate atmospheric alterations
•Delicate mosses found on rocks and trees in cities around the world can be used to measure the impact of atmospheric change and could prove a low-cost way to monitor urban pollution, according to Japanese scientists.
•The “bioindicator” responds to pollution or drought-stress by changing shape, density or disappearing, allowing scientists to calculate atmospheric alterations, said Yoshitaka Oishi, associate professor at Fukui Prefectural University.
•“This method is very cost effective and important for getting information about atmospheric conditions,” Oishi told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by telephone.
•“Mosses are a common plant in all cities so we can use this method in many countries ... they have a big potential to be bioindicators,” said Oishi, who analysed nearly 50 types of moss for the study.
•Oishi said humid cities where moss thrives could benefit most from using bryophytes – a collective term for mosses, hornworts and liverworts – as bioindicators, adding moss could be monitored in its natural environment or cultivated for analysis.
Effect of nitrogen pollution
•In a research paper published in the Landscape and Urban Planning journal, Oishi and a colleague described how they studied the effect of nitrogen pollution, air quality and drought-stress on moss found over a 3km square (1.9 mile) area in Hachioji City in northwestern Tokyo.
•The study showed severe drought-stress tended to occur in areas with high levels of nitrogen pollution, which it said raised concerns over the impact on health and biodiversity.
•However, the scientists could not effectively measure air purity which affects the number of moss types as pollution levels in the sample area were not high enough, said Oishi.
•“If the air pollution is severe, the purity is also evaluated by moss ... the change of the moss is very diverse according to the environmental problem,” said Oishi.
•Bioindicators such as mosses - which generally absorb water and nutrients from their immediate environments - were often cheaper to use than other methods of environmental evaluation, and can also reflect changes to ecosystems, said the scientists.
📰 SC: liquor sale ban does not extend to municipal areas
Clarifies order on 500-metre limit along National and State Highways
•The Supreme Court has clarified that its nationwide ban on sale of liquor within a distance of 500 metres along National and State Highways does not extend to municipal areas.
•The court, in an order dated July 11 which was uploaded on the Supreme Court website on Wednesday, clarified that the 500-metre ban does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas.
•The court explained that the December 15, 2016 ban on liquor sale only extends along and in proximity to highways which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. “The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated December 15, 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs [interlocutory applications], before the court,” a Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao held.
Litigation infructuous
•This clarification from the court has effectively made infructuous any pending litigation in High Courts on declassification of State or National Highways to district roads by State governments or local authorities. In short, stretches of highways running within city limits are now, by default, exempt from the liquor ban.
•The clarification comes as a huge relief for bar and hotel owners who were forced to shut down operations post the December 15 ban. Thousands were left jobless after these establishments were closed down.
📰 OBC list to be sub-categorised
Proposal gets Union Cabinet’s nod
•In a move that could have a far-reaching political and social impact, the Union Cabinet on Wednesday approved a proposal to set up a commission which will examine the issue of sub-categorisation of the Other Backward Classes (OBC).
•The committee has a three-point mandate. One, it has to examine the “extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation” among various castes and communities that come under the Central OBC list.
•The committee also has to work out the mechanism, criteria and parameters for the actual sub-categorisation. This will be tricky. The actual reservation will continue to be 27% and within this the committee will have to do the re-arranging.
•For example, if the committee comes to the conclusion that in the last many years Yadavs have benefited far more than Khatiks or Sainis then the amount of reservation for them will be increased vis-à-vis the Yadavs. “Of course, some castes will suffer a few cuts, but ultimately it will facilitate better distribution of benefits,” said a senior minister.
•The third task is bringing order to the Central list of OBCs by removing any repetitions.
•Briefing reporters on the Cabinet decision, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said, “The National Commission for Backward Classes had recommended it in 2011 and a standing committee too had repeated this. Already 11 States, including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Jammu region have such a categorisation in State government jobs.”
•The committee will work on a tight schedule and have to deliver the report in 12 weeks.
Creamy layer cap raised
•The Union Cabinet also increased the “creamy layer” ceiling for the Other Backward Classes to Rs. 8 lakh per annum from the existing Rs. 6 lakh for Central government jobs. This means that the umbrella of reservation is widened and those earning up to Rs. 8 lakh per annum would now get the benefits.
📰 It’s a day of reckoning for Aadhaar
Immediate effect of SC judgment on privacy will be felt on the government’s UID scheme
•A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar, will deliver its judgment on Thursday on the question whether the right to privacy of citizens is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
•The question is important as, in the words of one of the judges on the Bench Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, privacy means “the right to choose solitude if I want solitude or the freedom to socially cohabit, that is, if I want it”. Privacy can also extend to other aspects, including bodily integrity, personal autonomy, informational self-determination, protection from state surveillance, dignity, confidentiality, compelled speech, freedom to dissent or move or think.
Global significance
•The Supreme Court’s judgment gains international significance as privacy enjoys a robust legal framework internationally, though India has remained circumspect. The judgment, if it declares privacy a fundamental right, will finally reconcile Indian laws with the spirit of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which legally protects persons against the “arbitrary interference” with their privacy, family, home, correspondence, honour and reputation.
•The immediate effect of the judgment would be felt on the government’s Aadhaar scheme which collects personal details and biometrics to identify beneficiaries for accessing social benefits and government welfare schemes. A bunch of petitions were filed in the court in 2015 challenging Aadhaar as a breach of privacy, informational self-determination and bodily integrity. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar enrolment was the means to a “totalitarian state” and an open invitation for personal data leakage. The government countered that the right to privacy of an “elite few” was submissive to the right of the masses to lead a dignified life in a developing country. It said informational privacy did not exist before compelling State interests and was not an absolute right.
•It reasoned that collection and use of personal data of citizens for Aadhaar — now a law under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act of 2016 — benefits the lives of millions of poor by giving them direct access to public benefits, subsidies, education, food, health and shelter, among other basic rights.
Data collection
•The government claims Aadhaar is a panacea to end corruption in public distribution, money-laundering and terror-funding. Plagued by contradictions in the past judicial pronouncements on whether or not privacy is a fundamental right, a five-judge Constitution Bench decided to refer the question to a nine-judge Bench. The apprehension expressed by the Supreme Court about the collection and use of data is the risk of personal information falling in the hands of private players and service-providers.
•Both government and service-providers collect personal data such as mobile phone numbers, bank details, addresses, dates of birth, sexual identities, health records, property ownership and taxes without providing safeguards from third parties. National programmes such as Aadhaar, NATGRID, CCTNS, RSYB, DNA profiling, reproductive rights of women, privileged communications and brain mapping involve collection of personal data, including fingerprints, iris scans and bodily samples, and their storage in electronic form. The Law Commission has recently forwarded a Bill on human DNA profiling. All this adds to the danger of data leakage.
•The Supreme Court has repeatedly asked the government whether it plans to set up a “robust data protection mechanism”.
•On the final day of the arguments on August 6, the Bench reiterated that the “state is obliged to put a robust personal data protection mechanism in place in this digital age”.
📰 New mechanism to spur PSB mergers
Cabinet gives in-principle approval for oversight body
•Paving the way for quicker consolidation among public sector banks, the Cabinet approved ‘in-principle’ the constitution of an alternative mechanism, likely to be a ministerial group, that will oversee the proposals for mergers among banks.
•“As of today, there are 20 public sector banks plus the State Bank of India (SBI),” Finance, Corporate Affairs and Defence Minister Arun Jaitley said after the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, adding SBI’s five subsidiaries and Bharatiya Mahila Bank had already been merged with the country’s largest bank.
•“Now, if the board of any other public sector bank proposes a consolidation, this mechanism will oversee that process,” Mr. Jaitley said. “The Prime Minister will take a call on who will be members of this group and this will be intimated later,” he added.
•Stressing that the decision to create ‘strong and competitive banks will be solely based on commercial considerations and such decisions must start from the boards of the banks,’ the Minister said the proposals received from banks will be reviewed by the members of the alternative mechanism, enabling ‘quick decisions.’
•“Following an in-principle nod from the group, banks will take necessary steps under the law and as per SEBI norms for amalgamation and the final scheme will be notified by the Centre in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India,” Mr. Jaitley said, expressing hope that some consolidation activity would begin in this financial year itself.
•The Centre’s nudge towards consolidation among public sector banks assumes significance as most of them are grappling with huge levels of non-performing assets or NPAs, slow credit offtake and resultant pressures on capital adequacy.
‘First step’
•Rating agency Crisil termed the Cabinet decision as an important first step towards kick starting the consolidation process and said such mergers would improve NPA resolution following swifter decision making and an unified strategy. “This is structurally positive for public sector banks as they will benefit from operational and functional synergies resulting in better efficiencies,” said Krishnan Sitaraman, senior director, CRISIL Ratings. “Merger amongst similar performing banks can also result in effective implementation of NPA resolution strategies across PSBs,” he said.
•“Our experience of consolidation has been positive so far,” said Mr. Jaitley.
•“It adds commercial strengths, prevents multiplicity of resources being spent in the same areas, and it improves the capacity of the banking system to absorb shocks that the market throws up,” he said.
•When asked the likely criteria for bank mergers, the Minister said these will have to be driven by the bank boards. “It will be purely commercial… which are the banks, which is the merging bank, which is the principal bank with which it should merge – these initial proposals have to come from the boards of the banks,” he said.
•An official statement said that stronger public sector banks will help meet the credit needs of a growing economy, absorb shocks and give them the capacity to raise resources without depending unduly on the state exchequer.
•This year’s Budget provided Rs. 10,000 crore for bank recapitalisation, which, most bankers said, was inadequate. Mr. Jaitley had, however, held out the possibility of allocating more funds for banks if the requirement arose. The Centre said though suggestions to have fewer but stronger banks had been around since 1991, it was in May 2016 that effective action to consolidate them began. The merger of six banks into SBI was completed in ‘record time unlike earlier mergers of State Banks of Indore and Saurashtra,’ it stressed.
📰 ‘GST may hit natural rubber prices hard’
‘No clarity on rates for some products’
•With lack of demand from micro and small industries due to ambiguity on Goods and Services Tax (GST), prices of natural rubber are likely to decline in the coming months.
•The price has dipped from Rs. 143 per kg in April this year to Rs. 129-130 per kg (as on Wednesday). This price drop may accentuate in the months of October and November, which is the peak production season.
•Further, imports still continue despite the low prices of domestic material, weakening the domestic demand and prices.
•“We are entering into a growing season when abundant local material will be available to the consuming industry. Thus, suitable policies need to be brought in to restrict imports during these high cropping months to improve prices and prevent melt down of this strategic industry,” said B. K. Ajith, secretary, Association of Planters of Kerala.
•There are some input materials which have gone into the bracket of higher taxation, adversely affecting the grower and increasing the cost of production. Some examples are plastic shells for tapping, fungicides, sheet rollers and other processing equipment and this needs to be reviewed and corrected.
•“There is some confusion on the tax rates for certain products made out of rubber like rubber bands etc., which needs to be clearly defined and settled,” said Mr. Ajith.
•The non-tyre industry, which comprises micro and very small business, has been adversely affected due to factors such as size,turnover and capacity to weather the implication of the new regulations. Most in the industry have very low turnover and are not registered under GST, which provides for exemption as unregistered producer.
Unregistered producer
•However, being an unregistered producer has disadvantages in terms of claiming refund on taxes paid as well as dealing with buyers who will have to discharge the tax liability incurred for the grower.
•“This has led to lack of demand from thousands of these small industries which are struggling to cope up with the new ways (GST) of doing business,” said Santhoshkumar, senior vice-president, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., of RPG group.
•Though GST recognises unregistered buyers, rubber buying and trading mandates licence as per the Rubber Act.
📰 A BIT of critique
The Srikrishna committee has lost an opportunity to push for the recalibration of the Indian BIT regime
•The recent report of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna committee, constituted to prepare a road map to make India a hub of international arbitration, has recommended many changes in Indian arbitration law and institutional mechanisms to promote arbitration in India. Its recommendations on bilateral investment treaty (BIT) arbitration assume importance as India is currently battling 20-odd BIT disputes. These recommendations are largely on the issue of managing and resolving BIT disputes.
Dispute management
•For better management of BIT disputes, the committee recommends the creation of an inter-ministerial committee (IMC), with officials from the Ministries of Finance, External Affairs and Law. It also recommends hiring external lawyers having expertise in BITs to boost the government’s legal expertise; creating a designated fund to fight BIT disputes; appointing counsels qualified in BITs to defend India against BIT claims; and boosting the capacity of Central and State governments to better understand the implications of their policy decisions on India’s BIT obligations.
•The most significant recommendation is the creation of the post of an ‘international law adviser’ (ILA) to advise the government on international legal disputes, particularly BIT disputes, and who will be responsible for the day-to-day management of a BIT arbitration. The intent here is laudable, i.e. augmenting the government’s expertise on BITs and designating a single authority to deal with all BIT arbitrations. However, this recommendation will amount to duplicating the existing arrangement to offer advice on international law, including BITs, to the government.
•The Legal and Treaties (L&T) division of the External Affairs Ministry is mandated to offer legal advice to the government on all international law matters including BIT arbitrations. Instead of creating a new office — which will only intensify the turf wars between ministries, and deepen red tape — the L&T division should be strengthened. This division could be made the designated authority to deal with all BIT arbitrations and thus act as the coordinator of the proposed IMC. Furthermore, the IMC should have a member from the Commerce Ministry as well. This ministry, while dealing with India’s trade agreements — that also cover investment protection — works in tandem with the Finance Ministry. Thus it is only prudent that both be a part of an IMC on BIT dispute management.
Dispute resolution
•In resolving BIT disputes, the committee has made some useful interventions such as mentioning the possibility of establishing a BIT appellate mechanism and a multilateral investment court. However, its conclusion that the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, given in Article 15 of the Indian Model BIT, provides an effective mechanism for settling BIT disputes between an investor and state is problematic for the following reasons.
•First, Article 15 requires foreign investors to litigate in domestic courts at least for a period of five years. Assuming that proceedings end in five years but the investor is not happy with the outcome, the investor can initiate a BIT claim provided it is done within 12 months from conclusion of domestic proceedings. Out of these 12 months, the next six months must be spent trying to amicably settle the dispute with the state. If not, then the investor has to serve a 90-day notice period to the state, and only after this can she actually submit the dispute for BIT arbitration. In short, even if an investor is extremely alert, she only has a window of three months to actually submit a dispute for BIT arbitration. Such strict limitation periods dilute the effectiveness of the ISDS mechanism. Second, there are many other jurisdictional limitations given in Article 13 that also limit the usefulness of ISDS. Third, the ISDS mechanism in the Indian Model BIT extends from Articles 13 to 30 covering issues such as appointment of arbitrators, transparency provisions, enforcement of awards, standard of review, which have a bearing on the efficiency of the ISDS mechanism. The report is silent on all these critical issues.
A wish list
•BIT arbitration has three aspects: jurisdictional (such as definition of investment), substantive (such as provision on expropriation) and procedural (ISDS mechanism). While the commission’s mandate was to focus on BIT arbitration, i.e. on all the three parts, strangely, it narrowed it down to just the procedural aspect. This is even more surprising because the committee had organised a conference earlier this year to brainstorm on topics covering all three aspects mentioned earlier, especially in the context of Indian Model BIT. The committee’s explanation that since issues like expropriation require greater debate, it decided not to make any recommendations on these issues is weak. Despite making some useful suggestions, the committee has squandered a great opportunity to comprehensively push for the recalibration of the Indian BIT regime, which has oscillated from being pro-investor to being pro-state.
📰 Two cheers for the Supreme Court
While a significant victory, even the majority opinions in the triple talaq verdict were along narrow pathways
•On the 4th of November, 1948, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rose to address the Constituent Assembly, and proudly stated that “the... Constitution has adopted the individual as its unit”. On Tuesday, this constitutional vision, under siege for much of India’s journey as a democratic republic, came within a whisker of destruction at the hands of the Supreme Court. But when all the dust had cleared in Courtroom No. 1, it finally became evident that Chief Justice J.S. Khehar had been able to enlist only one other judge, out of a Bench of five, to support his novel proposition that the religious freedom under the Indian Constitution protected not just individual faith, but whole systems of “personal law”, spanning marriage, succession, and so on. This view would not only have immunised instantaneous triple talaq ( talaq-e-biddat ) from constitutional scrutiny, but would also — in the Chief Justice’s own words — have ensured that “it is not open for a court to accept an egalitarian approach, over a practice which constitutes an integral part of religion”.
•Had the Chief Justice managed to persuade one other judge to sign on to his judgment, we would have found ourselves living under a Constitution that sanctions the complete submergence of the individual to the claims of her religious community. A reminder, perhaps, of how even the most basic constitutional values, often taken for granted, hang by nothing more than the most fragile of threads. But if the relegation of the Chief Justice’s argument to a legally irrelevant dissenting opinion narrowly averted disaster, the separate opinions of three judges invalidating the practice of talaq-e-biddat gave us something to cheer about — but not much. By a majority decision, instantaneous triple talaq is now invalid, a significant victory that is the result of many decades of struggle by the Muslim women’s movement for gender justice. That is something that must be welcomed. However, the value of a Supreme Court judgment lies not only in what it decides, but also in the possibilities and avenues that it opens for the future, for further progressive-oriented litigation. In that sense, the triple talaq verdict is a disappointment, because even the majority opinions proceeded along narrow pathways, and avoided addressing some crucial constitutional questions.
The majority
•Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, writing for himself and Justice U.U. Lalit, held that the 1937 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act had codified all Muslim personal law, including the practice of triple talaq. This brought it within the bounds of the Constitution. He then held that because talaq-e-biddatallowed unchecked power to Muslim husbands to divorce their wives, without any scope for reconciliation, it was “arbitrary”, and failed the test of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution. The practice, therefore, was unconstitutional.
•Justice Nariman’s reasoning, while technically faultless, avoided the elephant in the room that had been ever-present since the hearing began. Under our constitutional jurisprudence, codified personal law — that is, personal law that has been given a statutory form, such as the Hindu Marriage Act — is subject to the Constitution. However, uncodified personal law is exempted from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, the moment the state legislates on personal law practices, its actions can be tested under the Constitution, but if the state fails to act, then those very practices — which, for all relevant purposes, are recognised and enforced by courts as law — need not conform to the Constitution. This anomalous position, which had first been advanced by the Bombay High Court in a 1952 decision called Narasu Appa Mali, and has never seriously been challenged after that, has the effect of creating islands of “personal law” free from constitutional norms of equality, non-discrimination, and liberty.
•By holding that the 1937 Act codified all Muslim personal law, Justice Nariman obviated the need for reconsidering this longstanding position, even as he doubted its correctness in a brief, illuminating paragraph. As a matter of constitutional adjudication and judicial discipline, he was undoubtedly right to do so. However, it is impossible to shake off the feeling that the court missed an excellent opportunity to review, and correct, one of its longstanding judicial errors. It seems trite to say that in our polity, there should not exist any constitutional black holes. The basic unit of the Constitution, as Ambedkar said, is the individual, and to privilege state-sanctioned community norms over individual rights negates that vision entirely.
•In a separate opinion — which turned out to be the “swing vote” in this case — Justice Kurian Joseph did not go even that far. He simply held that talaq-e-biddat found no mention in the Koran, and was no part of Muslim personal law. Effectively, he decided the case on the ground that talaq-e-biddat was un-Islamic, instead of unconstitutional — begging the question whether secular courts should be adjudicating such questions in the first place. If Justice Nariman’s opinion was narrow and technical, Justice Joseph’s was narrow and theological. Therefore, in a case that involved, at its heart, issues of the intersection between personal law, the Constitution, and gender discrimination, there is no majority view on any of these topics.
The dissent
•This brings us back to the dissent. Not only did the dissenting opinion privilege community claims over individual constitutional rights, it also conflated the freedom of religion with personal law, thereby advancing a position where religion could become the arbiter of individuals’ civil status and civil rights. Here again, it had been Ambedkar, extraordinarily prescient, who had warned the Constituent Assembly on the 2nd of December, 1948: “The religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life, from birth to death... if personal law is to be saved, I am sure... that in social matters we will come to a standstill. I do not think it is possible to accept a position of that sort. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that we ought to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such a manner that we shall not extent beyond beliefs and rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially religious. It is not necessary that the sort of laws, for instance, laws relating to tenancy or laws relating to succession, should be governed by religion.”
•Ultimately, what separates religious norms and personal law systems — and this includes all religions — from the laws of a democratic republic is the simple issue of consent. This is why the Chief Justice’s conflation of religious freedom and personal law was so profoundly misguided: because, in essence, he took a constitutional provision that had been designed to protect an individual, in her faith, from state interference, and extended it to protect a personal law system that claims authority from scriptures — scriptures whose norms are applied to individuals who had no say in creating them, and who have no say in modifying or rejecting them. The Muslim women challenging triple talaq invoked the Constitution because there was no equivalent within their personal law system; the Chief Justice would have denied not only them that possibility, but would have denied to every other individual, who felt oppressed and unequally treated by her religious community, for all time — and told them, as he did in this case: “Go to Parliament, but the Constitution has nothing for you.”
•At the very least, the Majority judgments did not close that window. For that, we must say: two cheers to the Supreme Court.
📰 Understanding work
In a timely initiative, a global commission is to look at the changing dynamics of work
•The Global Commission on the Future of Work, established on Monday, has a critical role in addressing the decent jobs deficit that affects the lives of roughly three billion working people. The body, which includes two representatives from India, is to present a report at the 2019 commemoration of the centenary of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Experts will build on recent dialogues in over 100 states on the implications for individuals and societies from the changing dynamics of work, production processes and rapid technological transformation.
More work, longer hours
•Meanwhile, the ILO’s ongoing assessment of major trends in different segments of the employment scenario points to the challenges that lie ahead and the adaptations required to advance its broader mission to promote social justice. Foremost, the far-reaching modifications witnessed in the means of production and access to mobile information and communication technology have created a flexible overall work environment. These applications allow relative independence from the rigid office settings and make room for people to function with autonomy and even achieve a better work-life balance. But in an increasingly competitive economic climate, these same developments invariably entail more intense activity and longer hours. Noteworthy is the acceleration in the demand for industrial robots, at an annual rate of 9% since 2011, making the upgradation of human skills imperative upon corporations and governments alike. In the manufacturing sector, where two-thirds of them are concentrated, the robot density — one machine deployed per 1,000 employees, in 2015 — was at 14 in the advanced world and two in developing countries. Harnessing the opportunities from these new technologies and mitigating the human costs from this unfolding transformation is a function of recognising the rights and responsibilities of individuals and employers.
Series of challenges
•In this latter respect, the overall record is not particularly encouraging. In 2016, less than half of all women in the working age bracket were engaged in the labour market, compared to over 75% among men. Worse, this situation is projected to persist over the next 15 years. Similarly, declining ratios of the population in the working age are expected to exacerbate the challenge of care for the elderly. Persistently high levels of unemployment since the global financial crisis perhaps encapsulate most of these concerns. The growth in international migration by as much as 50% since 1990 and the rise of xenophobia in many parts of the world illustrate the dangers from the lopsided trajectory of the current phase of globalisation. Compounding the effects of these challenges are two not unrelated factors. The first is the continued exclusion of about 50% of the global labour force from the formal sector of employment, with all-round insecurity. The other is the absence of meaningful social protection coverage for the majority of the world population; only 27% has recourse to comprehensive minimum support. Given this backdrop, the 2019 centenary must necessarily be more than an occasion for ceremony and symbolism.
