Ravan is a fictional DC Comics villain. His first appearance was in Suicide Squad #1 (1987), and was created by John Ostrander and Luke McDonnell.

Publication history
Ravan first appears as a member of the villainous mercenary team Jihad (renamed the Onslaught later). In an encounter with the Bronze Tiger his back was broken. He re-appears alongside the Onslaught in Suicide Squad #17, and is recruited for the Suicide Squad in his second encounter with the Bronze Tiger.

Fictional character biography
Part of the thuggee cult, handsome Indian playboy Ravan tries to stop the coming of Kali and thereby the Kali Yuga, the Age of Chaos, by killing for Kali. In doing so, he delays the coming of Kali for another thousand years. It is through this practice that he both prevents and worships Kali. His primary enemy is the villain Kobra, who wishes to bring forth the Age of Chaos.

Ravan joins the Suicide Squad so he can continue these efforts while actually being sponsored by the American government. He proceeds to develop a strange bond with Bronze Tiger, whom he swears to kill for his earlier defeats, but the two also form an effective team. During the Janus Directive, when Waller must make it seem like she is being controlled by Kobra, she sends the squad after the Force of July; Ravan kills Mayflower, a respected member of the Force of July.

Ravan becomes instrumental in Amanda Waller's plan to finish off the LOA, a drug-dealing organization. The villains' plan to expose the Squad succeeds, and it is revealed that Mr. Kale, who was seemingly the new boss, was just a front for Amanda Waller who had never left power.

With her superiors on the verge of disbanding the Suicide Squad, Amanda Waller gathers Ravan, Poison Ivy, and Deadshot in an assassination mission targeting the LOA, which is planning to create a zombie army. The deal for the villains is simple: the three will help Waller in killing the LOA and afterward they are set free.

The mission succeeds, and Amanda Waller goes to jail on charges of murder, while Ravan leaves for London, where he sets up a 'cyberchurch' as a front for his assassination organization. A year later, Batman kidnaps Ravan from this 'church' (blowing it up in the process) for the new Suicide Squad, again run by Amanda Waller.

With this Squad, Ravan goes to Israel to capture Kobra, but Kobra has already been captured by the Israeli government's superteam the Hayoth. Ravan easily manipulates one of their agents, thereby giving him access to their highly advanced A.I. computer Dybbuk. While Kobra's plans are being thwarted by the rest of the Suicide Squad, Ravan faces Kobra in combat, but Kobra has the upper hand and is close to killing Ravan.

At the last moment, the third Atom appears on the scenes, striking down Kobra. Ravan's last wish is for either him or the Atom to kill Kobra, but Atom denies him that final wish, and as Ravan himself says, he dies unfulfilled in Suicide Squad #47. According to Suicide Squad (vol. 2) #11, however, Ravan is incapacitated rather than deceased, as is shown on a computer screen being viewed by the second Rustam. Assuming this is true, Ravan nevertheless dies for certain sometime thereafter, though the details are not currently known.

During the events of Blackest Night, Ravan's corpse is reanimated as a member of the Black Lantern Corps alongside several other fallen Suicide Squad members. Ravan is apparently destroyed by the Manhunter's self-destruct mechanism when it unleashes an explosion of Green Lantern energy that eradicates the Black Lanterns.

Other versions
A character named Ravan Nassar appears in the non-canonical tie-in Arrow comics, Arrow: Season 2.5. In 2012, Kahndaq was liberated by A.R.G.U.S. and a multitude of soldiers, leading to the imprisonment of Ravan at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Two years later, an extremist sect named Onslaught began kidnapping and murdering, leading to Lyla Michaels to recruit Ravan for the Suicide Squad. After dropping above the Sinai Peninsula, they snuck in to the nearby city. They ambush extremists in the midst of an execution and Ravan, contrary to their initial plans, plants an IED device on one of their trucks, leaving only one, badly-burnt survivor. After some interrogation at the house, they request Ravan to know where the resistance leader Khem-Adam was, but he claims to have no idea. After John Diggle convinces him to talk about his location, they arrive at Amon-Shu Caves, fighting off Khem-Adam and his men. Before Nassar could take on Khem-Adam, the latter was killed by Nyssa al Ghul. After completing mission, Ravan returns to his cell at Guantanamo Bay.

In the Injustice: Gods Among Us reality, Ravan is a prisoner in the underwater facility called The Trench.

In other media
Ravan makes a non-speaking cameo appearance in the Arrow episode "Unthinkable", portrayed by Viv Leacock. This version is a reserve member of the A.R.G.U.S. Squad.

References

Comics characters introduced in 1987
DC Comics martial artists
DC Comics supervillains
Fictional assassins in comics
Fictional Indian people
Characters created by John Ostrander
Works based on the Ramayana

Ravan (comics)


Nicolai Jasnogrodsky (6 August 1859, Lubny – 23 April 1914, New York City) was a Russian–born American chess master.

Jasnogrodsky started to play competitive chess around 1885 in Vienna, and moved to England in the 1880s. He tied for 4-5th at Amsterdam 1889 (B tournament, Adolf Georg Olland and F. van den Berg won), and in 1890 earned the title of chess master at Amsterdam.

Jasnogrodsky became part of the chess fraternity of the Simpson's-in-the-Strand by 1891 and made a name for himself as a skilled simultaneous and blindfold player. In London tournaments he took 10th (Rudolf Loman won) and tied for 4-5th (Henry Bird won) in 1891, and took
8th (Emanuel Lasker won) in 1892. He drew a match with Bird (7.5 : 7.5) at London 1893.

In the summer of 1893 Jasnogrodsky came to the United States, attracted by the announcements of the Columbian Chess Congress.  He arrived in New York City on an Arizona steamship on August 11. The Congress was not held due to the lack of sufficient funds, but Jasnogrodsky, like other masters, remained in the New World. He participated in the Impromptu International Tournament where he finished 12th (Emanuel Lasker won).

He won the New York State Championship in late 1896, and also tied for 10-11th at New York 1894 (Wilhelm Steinitz won), lost a match to Eugene Delmar (1.5 : 5.5) at New York 1895, won against Manuel Marquez Sterling (5 : 0) in 1895, lost to David Graham Baird (1 : 2) in 1895, and drew a match with Frank James Marshall (3.5 : 3.5) at New York 1898.

He developed the Jasnogrodsky Defense against the Rice Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.O-O Bxe5 9.Re1 Qe7 10.c3 Nh5).

Jasnogrodsky died at Montefiore Home, Hospital and Country Sanitarium for Chronic Diseases. He was buried in Union Field Cemetery, for members of the New York City's Jewish community.

References

External links

1859 births
1914 deaths
American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent
Ukrainian Jews
American chess players
Jewish chess players
Chess theoreticians
19th-century chess players
Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the United States

Nicolai Jasnogrodsky


The LinuxTV project is an informal group of volunteers who develop software regarding digital television for the Linux kernel-based operating systems. The community develops and maintains the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) driver subsystem which is part of the Linux kernel since version 2.6.x. The Linux kernel and the LinuxTV CVS include a fair number of drivers for commonly available PCI cards and USB devices, but the DVB subsystem core is also targeted towards set-top boxes which run some (embedded) Linux.

The LinuxTV project was originally initiated by the Berlin, Germany based company Convergence Integrated Media GmbH with the goal to distribute free and open source software for the production, distribution and reception of digital television. In 1998, the Convergence founders claimed that "Only the access to the source code of our future television sets will guarantee the independence of content and technology".

After some financial troubles, in 2002 Convergence had been taken over by the German set top box manufacturer Galaxis AG, and renamed to Convergence GmbH. Although both Convergence GmbH and Galaxis AG went bankrupt in 2005, the LinuxTV project lives on independently, being supported by the large developer community that had gathered around the project over the years.

Another significant Convergence development is DirectFB, a thin library that provides hardware graphics acceleration and windowing features for GTK+-based and other graphical Linux applications without the use of X.Org Server, and which its developers claim "adds graphical power to embedded systems".

See also

 Tvheadend
 Video4Linux
 List of free television software
 Digital television

References

External links

 DVB-Wiki
 Sunray Linux DVB receiver

Free television software
Set-top box
Software that uses GTK
Television organizations

LinuxTV


The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Global Goals are a collection of seventeen interlinked objectives designed to serve as a "shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future." The short titles of the 17 SDGs are: No poverty (SDG 1), Zero hunger (SDG 2), Good health and well-being (SDG 3), Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equality (SDG 5), Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Reduced inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), Climate action (SDG 13), Life below water (SDG 14), Life on land (SDG 15), Peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16), Partnerships for the goals (SDG 17).

The SDGs emphasize the interconnected environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development by putting sustainability at their center.

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) created the SDGs as part of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. This agenda sought to design a new global development framework, replacing the Millennium Development Goals, which were completed that same year. These goals were formally articulated and adopted in a UNGA resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, often informally referred to as Agenda 2030. On 6 July 2017, the SDGs were made more actionable by a UNGA resolution that identifies specific targets for each goal and provides indicators to measure progress. Most targets are to be achieved by 2030, although some have no end date.

There are cross-cutting issues and synergies between the different goals; for example, for SDG 13 on climate action, the IPCC sees robust synergies with SDGs 3 (health), 7 (clean energy), 11 (cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production) and 14 (oceans). On the other hand, critics and observers have also identified trade-offs between the goals,such as between ending hunger and promoting environmental sustainability. Furthermore, concerns have arisen over the high number of goals (compared to the eight Millennium Development Goals), leading to compounded trade-offs, a weak emphasis on environmental sustainability, and difficulties tracking qualitative indicators.

The SDGs are monitored by the UN (United Nations) High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), an annual forum held under the auspices of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. However, the HLPF comes with its own set of problems due to a lack of political leadership and divergent national interests. To facilitate monitoring of progress on SDG implementation, the online SDG Tracker was launched in June 2018 to present all available data across all indicators. The COVID-19 pandemic had serious negative impacts on all 17 SDGs in 2020. A scientific assessment of the political impacts of the SDGs found in 2022 that the SDGs have only had limited transformative political impact thus far. At the very least, they have affected the way actors understand and communicate about sustainable development.

Adoption

On 25 September 2015, the 193 countries of the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Development Agenda titled "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development." This agenda has 92 paragraphs. Paragraph 59 outlines the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and the associated 169 targets and 232 indicators.

The UN-led process involved its 193 Member States and global civil society. The resolution is a broad intergovernmental agreement that acts as the Post-2015 Development Agenda. The SDGs build on the principles agreed upon in Resolution A/RES/66/288, entitled "The Future We Want." This was a non-binding document released as a result of Rio+20 Conference held in 2012.

Implementation
Implementation of the SDGs started worldwide in 2016. This process can also be called Localizing the SDGs. In 2019 António Guterres (secretary-general of the United Nations) issued a global call for a Decade of Action to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. This decade will last from 2020 to 2030. The plan is that the secretary general of the UN will convene an annual platform for driving the Decade of Action.

There are two main types of actors for implementation of the SDGs: state and non-state actors. State actors include national governments and sub-national authorities, whereas non-state actors are corporations and civil society. Civil society participation and empowerment is important but there are also diverse interests in this group.

Building new partnerships is useful. However, the SDGs are not legally binding and purposefully designed to provide much leeway for actors. Therefore, they can interpret the goals differently and often according to their interests.

Content of the 17 goals

Structure of goals, targets and indicators

The lists of targets and indicators for each of the 17 SDGs was published in a UN resolution in July 2017. Each goal typically has 812 targets, and each target has between one and four indicators used to measure progress toward reaching the targets, with the average of 1.5 indicators per target. The targets are either outcome targets (circumstances to be attained) or means of implementation targets. The latter targets were introduced late in the process of negotiating the SDGs to address the concern of some Member States about how the SDGs were to be achieved. Goal 17 is wholly about how the SDGs will be achieved.

The numbering system of targets is as follows: Outcome targets use numbers, whereas means of implementation targets use lower case letters. For example, SDG 6 has a total of 8 targets. The first six are outcome targets and are labeled Targets 6.1 to 6.6. The final two targets are means of implementation targets and are labeled as Targets 6.a and 6.b.

The United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) website provides a current official indicator list which includes all updates until the 51st session Statistical Commission in March 2020.

The indicators for the targets have varying levels of methodological development and availability of data at the global level. Initially, some indicators (called Tier 3 indicators) had no internationally established methodology or standards. Later, the global indicator framework was adjusted so that Tier 3 indicators were either abandoned, replaced or refined.  As of 17 July 2020, there were 231 unique indicators.

Data or information must address all vulnerable groups such as children, elderly folks, persons with disabilities, refugees, indigenous peoples, migrants, and internally-displaced persons.

Reviews of indicators
The indicator framework was comprehensively reviewed at the 51st session of the United Nations Statistical Commission in 2020. It will be reviewed again in 2025. At the 51st session of the Statistical Commission (held in New York City from 3–6 March 2020) a total of 36 changes to the global indicator framework were proposed for the commission's consideration. Some indicators were replaced, revised or deleted. Between 15 October 2018 and 17 April 2020, other changes were made to the indicators. Yet their measurement continues to be fraught with difficulties.

Listing of 17 goals with their targets and indicators

Goal 1: No poverty

SDG 1 is to: "End poverty in all its forms everywhere." Achieving SDG 1 would end extreme poverty globally by 2030. One of its indicators is the proportion of population living below the poverty line.  The data gets analyzed by sex, age, employment status, and geographical location (urban/rural).

Goal 2: Zero hunger (No hunger)

SDG 2 is to: "End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture." Indicators for this goal are for example the prevalence of undernourishment, prevalence of severe food insecurity, and prevalence of stunting among children under five years of age.

Goal 3: Good health and well-being
SDG 3 is to: "Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages." Important indicators here are life expectancy as well as child and maternal mortality. Further indicators are for example deaths from road traffic injuries, prevalence of current tobacco use, suicide mortality rate.

Goal 4: Quality education

SDG 4 is to: "Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all." The indicators for this goal are, for example, attendance rates at primary schools, completion rates of primary school education, participation in tertiary education, and so forth. In each case, parity indices are looked at to ensure that disadvantaged students do not miss out (data is collected on "female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples") . There is also an indicator around the facilities that the school buildings have (access to electricity, the internet, computers, drinking water, toilets etc.).

Goal 5: Gender equality

SDG 5 is to: "Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls." Indicators include, for example, having suitable legal frameworks and the representation by women in national parliament or in local deliberative bodies. Numbers on forced marriage and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) are also included in another indicator.

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

SDG 6 is to: "Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all." The Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) of WHO and UNICEF is responsible for monitoring progress to achieve the first two targets of this goal. Important indicators for this goal are the percentages of the population that uses safely managed drinking water, and has access to safely managed sanitation. The JMP reported in 2017 that 4.5 billion people do not have safely managed sanitation.  Another indicator looks at the proportion of domestic and industrial wastewater that is safely treated.

Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy
SDG 7 is to: "Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all." One of the indicators for this goal is the percentage of population with access to electricity (progress in expanding access to electricity has been made in several countries, notably India, Bangladesh, and Kenya). Other indicators look at the renewable energy share and energy efficiency.

Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth

SDG 8 is to: "Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all." Important indicators for this goal include economic growth in least developed countries and the rate of real GDP per capita. Further examples are rates of youth unemployment and occupational injuries or the number of women engaged in the labor force compared to men.

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

SDG 9 is to: "Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation." Indicators in this goal include for example, the proportion of people who are employed in manufacturing activities, are living in areas covered by a mobile network, or who have access to the internet. An indicator that is connected to climate change is "CO2 emissions per unit of value added."

Goal 10: Reduced inequality

SDG 10 is to: "Reduce income inequality within and among countries." Important indicators for this SDG are: income disparities, aspects of gender and disability, as well as policies for migration and mobility of people.

Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities

SDG 11 is to: "Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable." Important indicators for this goal are the number of people living in urban slums, the proportion of the urban population who has convenient access to public transport, and the extent of built-up area per person.

Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production

SDG 12 is to: "Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns." One of the indicators is the number of national policy instruments to promote sustainable consumption and production patterns. Another one is global fossil fuel subsidies. An increase in domestic recycling and a reduced reliance on the global plastic waste trade are other actions that might help meet the goal.

Goal 13: Climate action

SDG 13 is to: "Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy." In 2021 to early 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Sixth Assessment Report which assesses scientific, technical, and socio-economic information concerning climate change.

Goal 14: Life below water

SDG 14 is to: "Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development." The current efforts to protect oceans, marine environments and small-scale fishers are not meeting the need to protect the resources. Increased ocean temperatures and oxygen loss act concurrently with ocean acidification to constitute the deadly trio of climate change pressures on the marine environment.

Goal 15: Life on land

SDG 15 is to: "Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss." The proportion of remaining forest area, desertification and species extinction risk are example indicators of this goal.

Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions

SDG 16 is to: "Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels." Rates of birth registration and prevalence of bribery are two examples of indicators included in this goal.

Goal 17: Partnership for the goals

SDG 17 is to: "Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development." Increasing international cooperation is seen as vital to achieving each of the 16 previous goals. Developing multi-stakeholder partnerships to facilitate knowledge exchange, expertise, technology, and financial resources is recognized as critical to overall success of the SDGs. The goal includes improving north–south and South-South cooperation. Public-private partnerships which involve civil societies are specifically mentioned.

Cross-cutting issues and synergies
Three aspects need to come together to achieve sustainable development: the economic, socio-political, and environmental dimensions are all vital and interdependent. Multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary research across all three sectors are required to achieve progress. This proves difficult when major governments fail to support it.

Gender equality, education, culture and health are examples of cross cutting issues. These are some examples of various interlinkages inherent in the SDGs.

Gender equality
The widespread consensus is that progress on all of the SDGs will be stalled if women's empowerment and gender equality are not prioritized, and treated holistically. The SDGs look to policy makers as well as private sector executives and board members to work toward gender equality. Statements from diverse sources such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), UN Women and the World Pensions Forum, have noted that investments in women and girls have positive impacts on economies. National and global development investments in women and girls often exceed their initial scope.

Gender equality is mainstreamed throughout the SDG framework by ensuring that as much sex-disaggregated data as possible are collected.

Education and culture
Education for sustainable development (ESD) is explicitly recognized in the SDGs as part of Target 4.7 of the SDG on education. UNESCO promotes the Global Citizenship Education (GCED) as a complementary approach. Education for sustainable development is important for all the other 16 SDGs.

Culture is explicitly referenced in SDG 11 Target 4 ("Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world's cultural and natural heritage"). However, culture is seen as a cross-cutting theme because it impacts several SDGs. For example, culture plays a role in SDG targets where they relate to environment and resilience (within SDGs 11, 12 and 16), prosperity and livelihoods (within SDG 8), inclusion and participation (within SDG 11 and 16).

Health
SDGs 1 to 6 directly address health disparities, primarily in developing countries. These six goals address key issues in Global Public Health, Poverty, Hunger and Food security, Health, Education, Gender equality and women's empowerment, as well as water and sanitation. Public health officials can use these goals to set their own agenda and plan for smaller scale initiatives for their organizations.

The links between the various sustainable development goals and public health are numerous and well established:

 SDG 1: Living below the poverty line is attributed to poorer health outcomes and can be even worse for persons living in developing countries where extreme poverty is more common. A child born into poverty is twice as likely to die before the age of five compared to a child from a wealthier family.
 SDG 2: The detrimental effects of hunger and malnutrition that can arise from systemic challenges with food security are enormous. The World Health Organization estimates that 12.9 percent of the population in developing countries is undernourished.
 SDG 4 and 5: Educational equity has yet to be reached in the world. Public health efforts are impeded by this, as a lack of education can lead to poorer health outcomes. This is shown by children of mothers who have no education having a lower survival rate compared to children born to mothers with primary or greater levels of education.

Synergies
Synergies amongst the SDGs are "the good antagonists of trade-offs."With regards to SDG 13 on climate action, the IPCC sees robust synergies particularly for the SDGs 3 (health), 7 (clean energy), 11 (cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production) and 14 (oceans).

To meet SDG 13 and other SDGs, sustained long-term investment in green innovation is required to: decarbonize the physical capital stock – energy, industry, and transportation infrastructure – and ensure its resilience to a changing future climate; to preserve and enhance natural capital – forests, oceans, and wetlands; and to train people to work in a climate-neutral economy.

Challenges

Difficulties with tracking qualitative indicators
Regarding the targets of the SDGs, there is generally weak evidence linking the means of implementation to outcomes. The targets about means of implementation (those denoted with a letter, for example, Target 6.a) are imperfectly conceptualized and inconsistently formulated, and tracking their largely qualitative indicators will be difficult.

Trade-offs not explicitly addressed
The trade-offs among the 17 SDGs might prevent their realization. For example, these are three difficult trade-offs to consider: "How can ending hunger be reconciled with environmental sustainability? (SDG targets 2.3 and 15.2) How can economic growth be reconciled with environmental sustainability? (SDG targets 9.2 and 9.4) How can income inequality be reconciled with economic growth? (SDG targets 10.1 and 8.1)."

The SDGs do not specifically address the tensions between economic growth and environmental sustainability. Instead, they emphasize "longstanding but dubious claims about decoupling and resource efficiency as technological solutions to the environmental crisis." For example, continued global economic growth of 3 percent (SDG 8) may not be reconcilable with ecological sustainability goals, because the required rate of absolute global eco-economic decoupling is far higher than any country has achieved in the past.

Covid-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic slowed progress towards achieving the SDGs. At the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in July 2023, speakers remarked that the pandemic, and multiple worldwide crises such as climate change, threatened decades of progress on the SDGs.

Criticism

Too many goals and overall problems

Scholars have pointed out flaws in the design of the SDGs for the following aspects: "the number of goals, the structure of the goal framework (for example, the non-hierarchical structure), the coherence between the goals, the specificity or measurability of the targets, the language used in the text, and their reliance on neoliberal economic development-oriented sustainable development as their core orientation."

The SDGs may simply maintain the status quo and fall short of delivering an ambitious development agenda. The current status quo has been described as "separating human wellbeing and environmental sustainability, failing to change governance and to pay attention to trade-offs, root causes of poverty and environmental degradation, and social justice issues."

A commentary in The Economist in 2015 argued that 169 targets for the SDGs is too many, describing them as sprawling, misconceived and a mess compared to the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Weak on environmental sustainability

Scholars have criticized that the SDGs "fail to recognize that planetary, people and prosperity concerns are all part of one earth system, and that the protection of planetary integrity should not be a means to an end, but an end in itself." The SDGs "remain fixated on the idea that economic growth is foundational to achieve all pillars of sustainable development." They do not prioritize environmental protection.

The SDGs include three environment-focused SDGs, which are Goal 13, 14 and 15 (climate, land and oceans), but there is no overarching environmental or planetary goal. The SDGs do not pursue planetary integrity as such.

Environmental constraints and planetary boundaries are underrepresented within the SDGs. For instance, the way the current SDGs are structured leads to a negative correlation between environmental sustainability and SDGs, with most indicators within even the sustainability-focused goals focusing on social or economic outcomes. They could unintentionally promote environmental destruction in the name of sustainable development.

Certain studies also argue that the focus of the SDGs on neoliberal sustainable development is detrimental to planetary integrity and justice. Both of these ambitions (planetary integrity and justice) would require limits to economic growth.

Scientists have proposed several ways to address the weaknesses regarding environmental sustainability in the SDGs:

 The monitoring of essential variables to better capture the essence of coupled environmental and social systems that underpin sustainable development, helping to guide coordination and systems transformation.
 More attention to the context of the biophysical systems in different places (e.g., coastal river deltas, mountain areas)
 Better understanding of feedbacks across scales in space (e.g., through globalization) and time (e.g., affecting future generations) that could ultimately determine the success or failure of the SDGs.

Ethical aspects
There are concerns about the ethical orientation of the SDGs: they remain "underpinned by strong (Western) modernist notions of development: sovereignty of humans over their environment (anthropocentricism), individualism, competition, freedom (rights rather than duties), self-interest, belief in the market leading to collective welfare, private property (protected by legal systems), rewards based on merit, materialism, quantification of value, and instrumentalization of labor."

Some studies warn that the SDGs could be used to camouflage business-as-usual by disguising it using SDG-related sustainability rhetoric. A meta-analysis review study in 2022 found that: "There is even emerging evidence that the SDGs might have even adverse effects, by providing a "smokescreen of hectic political activity" that blurs a reality of stagnation, dead ends and business-as-usual."

Monitoring mechanism

UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)

The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) replaced the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in 2012. It should be a "regular meeting place for governments and non-state representatives to assess global progress towards sustainable development." The meetings take place under the auspices of the United Nations economic and Social Council. In July 2020 the meeting took place online for the first time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The theme was "Accelerated action and transformative pathways: realizing the decade of action and delivery for sustainable development" and a ministerial declaration was adopted.

High-level progress reports for all the SDGs are published in the form of reports by the United Nations Secretary General. The most recent one is from April 2020.

However, the HLPF has a range of problems. It has not been able to promote system-wide coherence. The reasons for this include its broad and unclear mandate combined with a lack of resources and divergent national interests. Therefore, this reporting system is mainly just a platform for voluntary reporting and peer learning among governments.

Monitoring tools and websites
The online publication SDG-Tracker was launched in June 2018 and presents data across all available indicators. It relies on the Our World in Data database and is also based at the University of Oxford. The publication has global coverage and tracks whether the world is making progress towards the SDGs. It aims to make the data on the 17 goals available and understandable to a wide audience. The SDG-Tracker highlights that the world is currently (early 2019) very far away from achieving the goals.

The Global SDG Index and Dashboards Report is the first publication to track countries' performance on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The annual publication, co-produced by Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN, includes a ranking and dashboards that show key challenges for each country in terms of implementing the SDGs. The publication also shows an analysis of government efforts to implement the SDGs.

Reporting on progress

Overall status
Reports by the United Nations (for example the UN Global Sustainable Development Report in 2019) and by other organizations who are tracking progress on the SDGs have repeatedly pointed out that the world is unlikely to achieve most of the targets by 2030 (or earlier for those targets that have an earlier target yet). This is called the world is not on track. Of particular concern - which cut across many of the SDGs – are rising inequalities, ongoing climate change and increasing biodiversity loss. In addition, there is a trade-off between the planetary boundaries of Earth and the aspirations for wealth and well-being. This has been described as follows: "the world's social and natural biophysical systems cannot support the aspirations for universal human well-being embedded in the SDGs."

Due to various economic and social issues, many countries are seeing a major decline in the progress made. In Asia for example, data shows a loss of progress on goals 2, 8,10,11, and 15. Recommended approaches to still achieve the SDGs are: "Set priorities, focus on harnessing the environmental dimension of the SDGs, understand how the SDGs work as an indivisible system, and look for synergies."

Assessing the political impact of the SDGs
A scientific assessment released in 2022 analysed the political impacts of the SDGs. It reviewed over 3,000 scientific articles, mainly from the social sciences. The study looked at possible discursive, normative and institutional effects. The presence of all three types of effects throughout a political system is defined as transformative impact, which is the eventual goal of the 2030 Agenda.

Discursive effects relate to changes in global and national debates that make them more aligned with the SDGs. Normative effects would be adjustments in legislative and regulatory frameworks and policies in line with, and because of, the SDGs. Institutional effects would be the creation of new departments, committees, offices or programs linked to the achievement of the SDGs or the realignment of existing institutions.

The review found that the SDGs have had only limited transformative political impact thus far. They have had mainly discursive effects only. For example, the broad uptake of the principle of leaving no one behind in pronouncements by policymakers and civil society activists is a discursive effect. The SDGs have also led to some isolated normative and institutional reforms. However, there is widespread doubt that the SDGs can steer societies towards more ecological integrity at the planetary scale. This is because countries generally prioritize the more socioeconomic SDGs (e.g. SDGs 8 to 12) over the environmentally oriented ones (e.g. SDGs 13 to 15), which is in alignment with their long-standing national development policies.

Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 had impacts on all 17 goals. It has become "the worst human and economic crisis in a lifetime." The pandemic threatened progress made in particular for SDG 3 (health), SDG 4 (education), SDG 6 (water and sanitation for all), SDG 10 (reduce inequality) and SDG 17 (partnerships).

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has also taken the initiative to achieve the SDGs by offering their support to developing countries. For example, the IMF works to reduce poverty in low-income developing countries by offering financial support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Uneven priorities of goals
In 2019 five progress reports on the 17 SDGs were published. Three came from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), one from the Bertelsmann Foundation and one from the European Union. A review of the five reports analyzed which of the 17 Goals were addressed in priority and which ones were left behind. In explanation of the findings, the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics said Biodiversity, Peace and Social Inclusion were "left behind" by quoting the official SDGs motto "Leaving no one behind."

It has been argued that governments and businesses actively prioritize the social and economic goals over the environmental goals (such as Goal 14 and 15) in both rhetoric and practice.

Costs

Cost estimates
The United Nations estimates that for Africa, considering the continent's population growth, yearly funding of $1.3 trillion would be needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. The International Monetary Fund also estimates that $50 billion may be needed only to cover the expenses of climate adaptation.

Estimates for providing clean water and sanitation for the whole population of all continents have been as high as US$200 billion. The World Bank says that estimates need to be made country by country, and reevaluated frequently over time.

In 2014, UNCTAD estimated the annual costs to achieving the UN Goals at US$2.5 trillion per year. Another estimate from 2018 (by the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics, that conducts the World Social Capital Monitor) found that to reach all of the SDGs this would require between US$2.5 and $5.0 trillion per year.

Allocation of funds
In 2017 the UN launched the Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development (UN IATF on FfD) that invited to a public dialogue. The top-5 sources of financing for development were estimated in 2018 to be: Real new sovereign debt OECD countries, military expenditures, official increase sovereign debt OECD countries, remittances from expats to developing countries, official development assistance (ODA).

The Rockefeller Foundation asserted in 2017 that "The key to financing and achieving the SDGs lies in mobilizing a greater share of the $200+ trillion in annual private capital investment flows toward development efforts, and philanthropy has a critical role to play in catalyzing this shift." Large-scale funders participating in a Rockefeller Foundation-hosted design thinking workshop concluded that "while there is a moral imperative to achieve the SDGs, failure is inevitable if there aren't drastic changes to how we go about financing large scale change."

A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that there was scant evidence that governments have substantially reallocated funding to implement the SDGs, either for national implementation or for international cooperation. The SDGs do not seem to have changed public budgets and financial allocation mechanisms in any important way, except for some local governance contexts. National budgets cannot easily be reallocated.

SDG-driven investment
Capital stewardship is expected to play a crucial part in the progressive advancement of the SDG agenda to "shift the economic system towards sustainable investment by using the SDG framework across all asset classes." The notion of SDG Driven Investment gained further ground amongst institutional investors in  2019.

In 2017, 2018 and early 2019, the World Pensions Council (WPC) held a series of ESG-focused (Environmental, Social and Governance) discussions with pension board members (trustees) and senior investment executives from across G20 nations. Many pension investment executives and board members confirmed they were in the process of adopting or developing SDG-informed investment processes, with more ambitious investment governance requirements – notably when it comes to climate action, gender equality and social fairness.

Some studies, however, warn of selective implementation of SDGs and political risks linked to private investments in the context of continued shortage of public funding.

Communication and advocacy

The 2030 Agenda did not create specific authority for communicating the SDGs; however, both international and local advocacy organizations have pursued significant non-state resources to communicate the SDGS. UN agencies which are part of the United Nations Development Group decided to support an independent campaign to communicate the new SDGs to a wider audience. This campaign, Project Everyone, had the support of corporate institutions and other international organizations.

Using the text drafted by diplomats at the UN level, a team of communication specialists developed icons for every goal. They also shortened the title The 17 Sustainable Development Goals to Global Goals, then ran workshops and conferences to communicate the Global Goals to a global audience.

The Aarhus Convention is a United Nations convention passed in 2001, explicitly to encourage and promote effective public engagement in environmental decision making. Information transparency related to social media and the engagement of youth are two issues related to the Sustainable Development Goals that the convention has addressed.

Advocates
In 2019 and then in 2021, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres appointed 17 SDG advocates. The role of the public figures is to raise awareness, inspire greater ambition, and push for faster action on the SDGs. The co-chairs are: Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados and Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada.

Global events

Global Goals Week is an annual week-long event in September for action, awareness, and accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals. It is a shared commitment for over 100 partners to ensure quick action on the SDGs by sharing ideas and transformative solutions to global problems. It first took place in 2016. It is often held concurrently with Climate Week NYC.

The Arctic Film Festival is an annual film festival organized by HF Productions and supported by the SDGs' Partnership Platform. Held for the first time in 2019, the festival is expected to take place every year in September in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway.

History

The Post-2015 Development Agenda was a process from 2012 to 2015 led by the United Nations to define the future global development framework that would succeed the Millennium Development Goals. The SDGs were developed to succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which ended in 2015.

In 1983, the United Nations created the World Commission on Environment and Development (later known as the Brundtland Commission), which defined sustainable development as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In 1992, the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, where the first agenda for Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21, was developed and adopted.

In 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), also known as Rio+20, was held as a 20-year follow up to UNCED. Colombia proposed the idea of the SDGs at a preparation event for Rio+20 held in Indonesia in July 2011. In September 2011, this idea was picked up by the United Nations Department of Public Information 64th NGO Conference in Bonn, Germany. The outcome document proposed 17 sustainable development goals and associated targets. In the run-up to Rio+20 there was much discussion about the idea of the SDGs. At the Rio+20 Conference, a resolution known as "The Future We Want" was reached by member states. Among the key themes agreed on were poverty eradication, energy, water and sanitation, health, and human settlement.

In January 2013, the 30-member UN General Assembly Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals was established to identify specific goals for the SDGs. The OWG submitted their proposal of 8 SDGs and 169 targets to the 68th session of the General Assembly in September 2014. On 5 December 2014, the UN General Assembly accepted the Secretary General's Synthesis Report, which stated that the agenda for the post-2015 SDG process would be based on the OWG proposals.

Country examples

Asia and Pacific

Australia

Africa

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has collected information to show how awareness about the SDGs among government officers, civil society and others has been created in many African countries.

Nigeria

Europe and Middle East

Baltic nations, via the Council of the Baltic Sea States, have created the Baltic 2030 Action Plan., ,

Lebanon

Syria
Higher education in Syria began with sustainable development steps through Damascus University. With unique environmental measures, starting from the Barada River, green space and health.

United Kingdom
The UK's approach to delivering the Global SDGs is outlined in Agenda 2030: Delivering the Global Goals, developed by the Department for International Development. In 2019, the Bond network analyzed the UK's global progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  The Bond report highlights crucial gaps where attention and investment are most needed. The report was compiled by 49 organizations and 14 networks and working groups.

See also

 Sustainability
 SDG Publishers Compact

References

External links

UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform – The SDGs
"Global Goals" Campaign Campaign on the SDGs published by Project Everyone
Global SDG Indicators Database of the United Nations
SDG-Tracker.org – Visualized tracking of progress towards the SDGs
SDG Pathfinder – Explore content on SDGs from six international organizations (powered by the OECD)

International sustainable development
United Nations documents
Global policy organizations
Sustainable development

Sustainability
United Nations Common Agenda

Sustainable Development Goals


The Velliangiri Mountains (Tamil: வெள்ளியங்கிரி மலை) a part of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve are situated at the Western Ghats  of Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu. Known as the "Sapthagiri, 7 Hills (Tamil: சப்தகிரி, ஏழுமலை) - Seven Mountains", these mountains are held and revered on par with spiritually most powerful place on the planet - Mount Kailash, the legendary abode of Shiva. On the top of the Velliangiri Mountains, Shiva is worshipped as Swayambhu, one who is self-created and in this form, he graces the devotees.

Geography
The Velliangiri hills form a major range in the Western Ghats in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. The seven hills with altitudes ranging from 520 m – 1840 m are bordered by the plains of Coimbatore district to the east, the Palakad district of Kerala on the western boundary, the Nilgiri mountains to the north, and the Siruvani hills on the southern boundary. The annual rainfall is quite variable in the hills (500 mm – 7000 mm) with temperatures ranging from 0 °C during winter to 41 °C in the summer. Many seasonal rivers such as the Neelivaikal, Mayar or Andisunai traverse the hilly landscape. The Noyyal river originating from Velliangiri hills is one of the major tributaries of the Cauvery, which irrigates about 100,000 of hectares of agricultural land in the plains. The Velliangiri hills watershed feeds into the Siruvani dam, which is the main drinking water supply for 1,500,000 people in the urban centre of Coimbatore.

Vegetation is predominantly dry deciduous forests of foothills, second and third mount have evergreen forest and last four belt up shola forest types.

Religious significance
According to the Kachiappar Perur Purana, Shiva in the hill of Kailayam (Mount Kailash), was worshipped by Vishnu-Komuni. Shiva appeared before him and asked, "What is your wish?" "My eyes have not seen your dance of grace (Aananda Thaandava). So I wish to see that, said Vishnu. Lord Shiva said: "The two sages Patanjali and Vyaghrapada have performed some of their virtues, and I showed them my dance in Vellinangiri.(Om Nama Shivaya)

In the same way, Vishnu obeyed the command of the Shiva, wearing the Rudraksham, Vishnu went to the southwest of Velliangiri hills and worshipped Lord Shiva.

As per a legend, Vayu Bhaghvan and Adiseshan had a dispute to find out who is superior, to prove the superiority adiseshan encircled the Kailasam, Vayu tried to remove this encircle by creating santamarutham (Twister). Because of the santamarutham, 8 kodumudigal (parts) fell from kailasam into 8 different places which are Thirugonamalai (Trincomalee), Thirukalahasti, Thiruchiramalai, Thiruenkoimalai, Velliangiri Mountains at Tamil Nadu, Neerthagiri, Ratnagiri, and Swethagiri or Thirupangeeli.

Shiva is known as Swayambu (சுயம்பு), the source of the creator.

Shiva Temple
Of all the mountain shrines in Tamil Nadu, the Shiva temple of Velliangiri in the western boundary is considered to be the most famous. Known as Rajathagiri, Velliangiri, Dakshin Kailash or Bhoolok Kailash, this sacred spot, according to legend, is where Shiva performed his cosmic dance on the request of his consort Umadevi. The five faces of Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Maheshwara and Sadasiva, are seen as Panchagiri and as Panchalingas pertaining to the panchabhutas, in Velliangiri. The hill ranges have abundant natural resources, which include rare herbs.

Lord Panchalingesa and his Consort Manonmani amman alias Parvathi, bestow their grace on the devotees who throng here annually between February and May. There is a plan to provide shelters and temporary toilets near Andisunnai for the devotees during the season.

Access
The Transport Corporation ply buses between Coimbatore (Gandhi Puram) and Poondi every day. Special bus services are available during festive occasions like Maha Shivrathri. Coimbatore is on the international circuit with flights connecting it to Singapore and Sharjah. On the domestic front it is well connected to Kozhikode, Chennai, Kochi, Bangalore, Mumbai, and Delhi by both rail and road.

Seasons that are suitable for trekking this mountain is between mid Feb to mid May (in Tamil months maasi, panguni and chitirai). Entry is restricted by the forest department in the other months. However entry is said to be given by forest department on new moon day and full moon day upon prior request. During trekking, one has to be careful of elephants near bamboo trees and other animals.

During trekking season, forest check post at base camp filter plastics which may harm wild animals and pollute the environment. It is recommended to support the forest people by collecting thrown away plastics back from the hills.

Location
13 km from the foothills of the Poondi temple.
30 km from the commercial center Coimbatore city and near Siruvani, Altitude: 5833 ft.

References

 வெள்ளியங்கிரி மலை
 Shiva and the Velliangiri Mountains
 Velliangiri Hills Conservation Campaign
 Velliangiri Hills, Ideal Locale for pilgrimage off Kovai
 Manjampatti Valley

External links

 Holidays for Soul - Velliangiri Hills
 Trekking information on Vellingiri Hills
 Tamilnadu Tourism - Velliangiri Hills
 வெள்ளியங்கிரி மலைக்குப் போலாமா?-
 கோமுனி-திருமால் வழிபட்ட தென்கைலாயம் -பேரூர் புராணம்

Hindu temples in Coimbatore district
Coimbatore district
Geography of Coimbatore
Mountains of the Western Ghats
Mountains in Hinduism

Velliangiri Mountains


On 9 December 2019, Whakaari / White Island, an active stratovolcano island in New Zealand's northeastern Bay of Plenty region, explosively erupted. The island was a popular tourist destination, known for its volcanic activity, and 47 people were on the island at the time. Twenty-two people died, either in the explosion or from injuries sustained, including two whose bodies were never found and were later declared dead. A further 25 people suffered injuries, with the majority needing intensive care for severe burns. Continuing seismic and volcanic activity, together with heavy rainfall, low visibility and the presence of toxic gases, hampered recovery efforts over the week following the incident.

Experts identified the event as a phreatic eruption: a release of steam and volcanic gases that caused an explosion, launching rock and ash into the air.

Following the eruption, investigations resulted in WorkSafe New Zealand charging the owners of the island and multiple tour operators as well as government and scientific agencies under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for failing to ensure the health and safety of workers and others. , the charges against two government agencies have been dismissed or dropped and five tour operators have pled guilty to health and safety charges. The trial of six remaining defendants (three individual owners of the island and three tour operating companies) commenced on 11 July 2023. In early September 2023, Judge Evangelos Thomas dismissed the individual charges against the island's owners Peter, Andrew, and James Buttle but upheld the charges against their company Whakaari Management Limited (WML). On 12 September, Thomas dismissed the charges against co-defendants Tauranga Tourism Services (TTSL) and ID Tours, reducing the number of defendants to one. On 31 October, WML was convicted of one health and safety charge relating to the eruption.

Background

Whakaari / White Island is an active andesite stratovolcano, situated  off the north-northeast coast of the North Island of New Zealand in the Bay of Plenty. The volcano has erupted many times in recent history, including several times in the 1980s. A major eruption formed a new crater in 2000, and small eruptions occurred in 2012, 2013, and 2016.

The volcano had been showing signs of unrest for several weeks before the 2019 eruption. In October 2019, volcanic tremors and sulphur dioxide gas were at their highest levels since 2016, indicating that an eruption was more likely to occur, and on 18 November, the volcano was rated at Volcanic Alert Level 2, indicating "moderate to heightened volcanic unrest", due to increased activity.

On 24 November, two weeks before the eruption, a moment magnitude () 5.9 earthquake lasting approximately one minute with an epicentre located  northeast of White Island occurred, and was felt by people throughout New Zealand as far south as Christchurch. Seismic activity can be a contributing factor to hydrothermic eruptions, due to a reduction of pressure within the geothermal system.

The island is monitored by GNS Science with three web cameras, one seismograph, and a microphone to detect volcanic explosions. The organisation also makes regular visits to test water, gas and soil, and to survey surface deformation.

Tourists regularly visited the island, primarily through White Island Tours. The organisation posted a statement on their web page before the eruption, which stated:

Eruption

The volcano erupted on 9 December 2019 at 14:11 NZDT (01:11 UTC). The ash plume rose  into the air.

It was initially believed that there were about 100 tourists on or near the island when the eruption took place; later, this figure was revised to 47 people who were on the island at the time. Of these people, 38 were passengers on a shore excursion from the cruise ship Ovation of the Seas, which was on a 12-day voyage around New Zealand and had berthed at the Port of Tauranga that morning.

Some visitors were waiting for vessels to take them off the island at the time of the eruption. Tour operators and these vessels rescued 23 people from the island before it was officially declared unsafe. A passenger on one of the boats stated that his vessel attempted to first outrun the ash cloud before many on the vessel noticed a crowd of people in need of help on the jetty. Those who were brought onto the boat were aided by the original passengers who used water bottles, jackets and other clothing, inhalers, and eye drops.

Another passenger told reporters that the boat he was on, which was about  offshore at the time of the eruption, launched an emergency inflatable and retrieved 23 people before returning to the mainland. Paramedics from the New Zealand Coastguard boarded the boat before it reached the docks to tend the injured.

Noticing the eruption from the mainland shore, three commercial helicopter pilots conducted rescue missions to the island in their helicopters, bringing back twelve survivors. They also saw several bodies in the area, but concentrated on bringing back the survivors. The pilots reportedly attempted to return to the island to collect the bodies they had seen but were stopped by police; however, they were consulted later in order to collect the bodies once the area became more stable.

Casualties

The 47 people on the island at the time of the eruption consisted of 24 Australians, nine Americans, five New Zealanders, four Germans, two Chinese, two Britons, and one Malaysian. A passenger on a rescue boat stated that many of the injured had severe burns as many of them had worn just T-shirts and shorts for the day.

At 18:35 on 9 December, media were told there was one confirmed fatality, with more likely to be dead as several were missing, while many were injured, seven critically. Authorities said it was still too dangerous for the emergency services to get onto the island to rescue people as it is covered in ash and volcanic material. Later the same day, officials declared that forty-seven people were on the island at the moment of the eruption: five were killed, 34 injured and rescued, while eight were missing and presumed dead.

Three other people died in hospital the next days, bringing the confirmed death toll to eight. Six more bodies were found during an operation on the island, bringing the death toll to 14. On 14 December, it was announced that the death toll had risen to 15 as another injured person died in hospital. A day later, an Australian citizen who was repatriated died in hospital, bringing the death toll to 16, plus two victims whose bodies had not been recovered. Another victim died from injuries in hospital, pushing the death toll to 19 including two missing people that were presumed dead. A further victim died at a hospital in Australia on 12 January 2020 bringing the total to 20. Authorities were still working to recover two more bodies, but efforts were scaled down from 15 January.

Fatalities
Over the days following the initial eruption, the death toll steadily rose as bodies were recovered from the island and as several of the severely burnt victims succumbed to their injuries. On 15 December, it was announced that the death toll had risen to 16. Including two people who were missing and later considered fatalities, there were 13 Australian tourists, three Americans and two New Zealand men who worked as guides for White Island Tours. Another victim, an American woman, succumbed to her injuries on 22 December, raising the confirmed death toll to 19 and the number of the American fatalities to four. In January 2020, an Australian man and an American man died of their injuries and the two missing people were officially declared as dead, bringing the death toll to 21. A German man died on 2 July 2020, bringing the death toll to 22.

Due to the severe injuries sustained by those on the island, identification of the deceased was carried out by a variety of individuals including a pathologist, a forensic dentist, and a fingerprint officer. This was aided by officers creating profiles of the victims, including descriptions of appearance, clothing, photos, fingerprints, medical and dental records, and DNA samples. The information was then matched to evidence gathered from the deceased individual in the autopsy.

Injuries
All but three of the survivors suffered severe or critical injuries and the vast majority were badly burned. They were initially taken to Whakatāne Hospital, where they were triaged and stabilised before being transferred to other hospitals. Whakatāne Hospital, Tauranga Hospital, and Waikato Hospital in Hamilton all activated their mass casualty plans. On 10 December, the Ministry of Health announced that twenty-five people had been transferred to the country's four burns units in Auckland (Middlemore), Hamilton, Lower Hutt, and Christchurch, all of which were at capacity. On 11 December, it was reported that New Zealand had ordered 1.2 million cm2 (186,000 sq in) of skin from the United States and Australia to treat patients following the eruption, some of whom had burns on up to 95% of their bodies. Three survivors suffered slight injuries.

Thirteen injured Australians were airlifted to Australia from the night of 11 December to receive treatment in hospitals in Sydney and Melbourne. Three Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) planes, a C-130J Super Hercules and two C-17 Globemasters, flew to Christchurch with specialist aircrew and medical equipment on board. Several Australian state governments also supplied aircraft to assist in the airlift. A total of twelve Australians were expected to be airlifted to their homeland.

Missing after eruption
Initially, rescuers focused their efforts on people who were still alive and left the deceased on the island. Consequently, many people were listed as missing until their bodies were recovered and formally identified. On 15 December, authorities said the bodies of two victims had not been found and may have been swept into the sea. Police believe their bodies were initially near a stream, and were swept down the stream during a "significant weather event" on the night of 9 December. On 23 January, the coroner declared the missing two to be dead.

Aftermath
Directly after the eruption, the volcanic alert level for the island was raised to 4, but was decreased by 16:30 on the same day to level 3. No further eruptive activity occurred, and on 12 December the volcanic alert level was lowered to 2, signifying "moderate to heightened volcanic unrest." Volcanic tremor increased in the aftermath of the eruption, with small scale gas jetting and steam bursts observed on 13 December, however, the volcanic tremor level dropped that evening.

Ovation of the Seas postponed its departure from Tauranga until the morning of 11 December as police collected DNA samples from the cabins of the missing passengers. Māori townspeople and members of the Ovation of the Seas passengers and crew held a moment of silence honouring the ship's passengers and other victims. Later a representative of the Māori began a karakia tau te mauri, a traditional blessing to settle the spirit before the ship left. The ship returned to Sydney on 16 December on an altered itinerary via Wellington and Picton. All passengers received the equivalent of one day's fare in on-board credit as compensation.

All those injured and killed in the eruption, regardless of nationality, would be covered by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), who administer New Zealand's no-fault accident compensation scheme. The ACC Act generally prevents claims for damages for negligent acts in New Zealand, but it may be possible for the cruise ship passengers to sue in American courts under United States maritime law.

On 6 December 2020, Radio New Zealand reported that more than 89,000 people had signed a petition to stop the prosecution of helicopter pilots from Kahu Helicopters, Volcanic Air and Aerius who had saved lives during the eruption. In addition, the Association of Scientists has warned that the prosecution of Crown research institutions like GNS Science could have the effect of muting the scientific community and preventing the sharing of vital information during a crisis.

In December 2022, a group of about 20 people which included family members of victims, survivors and first responders returned to the island in order to place a memorial plaque to honour the 22 deceased victims. While the group was photographed without any safety equipment, they reportedly had worked with authorities and cultural advisors to travel to the island in order to place the plaque. Another ceremony was in New Zealand that month to honour the victims after being unable to in previous years due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Legal action

Investigation and prosecutions
In December 2019, the New Zealand Police launched an investigation into the disaster in conjunction with WorkSafe New Zealand.

On 30 November 2020, it was reported that WorkSafe New Zealand had filed charges against 13 parties over tours to the island, including its owners, the Buttle family (who own the island through Whakaari Management Ltd), GNS Science, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), and tour operators Volcanic Air and the Ngāti Awa–owned White Island Tours. Ten parties were charged under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; nine under Section 36 for failing to ensure the health and safety of workers and others, with one facing a charge as a person controlling a business. Each of these charges carries a maximum fine of NZ$1.5 million. Three individuals were also charged under Section 44 of the act which requires directors or individuals who have influence over a company to ensure that the company meets health and safety obligations. Each charge carries a maximum fine of NZ$300,000.

At a court hearing on 5 March 2021 the names of all the charged were officially revealed. Ten organisations and three individuals were charged under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The ten organisations were seven tourism companies (White Island Tours Limited; Volcanic Air Safaris Limited; Aerius Limited; Kahu NZ Limited; Inflite Charters Limited; I D Tours New Zealand Limited; and Tauranga Tourism Services Limited), GNS Science, the National Emergency Management Agency and Whakaari Management Ltd. The three individuals were Andrew, James and Peter Buttle, directors of Whakaari Management. A number of the charges were for alleged offences between April 2016 and December 2019. None of the charges relate to events following the eruption, when some of the charged parties rescued people from the island. On 26 August 2021, the 13 defendants pleaded not guilty to charges of health and safety breaches.

On 31 March 2022, the scenic flight operator Inflite pleaded guilty to the health and safety charges, and was ordered to pay fines of $227,500 and costs of prosecution of $40,000.

On 4 May 2022, the National Emergency Management Agency successfully appealed for a dismissal of the charges against it in relation to the Whakaari eruption. NEMA's lawyer Victoria Casey QC claimed that the application of section 36(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 would lead to "absurd outcomes". Judge Evangelos Thomas of the Auckland District Court ruled in favour of the defendant. The charge against GNS Science relating to how it communicated volcanic risk to the public was dropped in October 2022.

On 31 May 2022, the Buttle family, who own Whakaari / White Island, announced that they were applying to the court to have the charges against them dismissed. In May 2023 Judge Thomas ruled that the charges would not be dismissed.

On 14 March 2023, ID Tours failed to get the charges against it in relation to the Whakaari eruption dismissed.

On 15 June 2023, White Island Tours pleaded guilty to amended health and safety charges relating to the 2019 Whakaari eruption. On 7 July 2023, three commercial helicopter operators Volcanic Air, Kanu, and Aerius pleaded guilty to amended health and safety charges, bringing the number of defendants down to six.

2023 Worksafe trial

July 2023
On 11 July, the trial of the remaining six defendants—Andrew, James and Peter Buttle, their company Whakaari Management Limited (WML), and tour companies ID Tours New Zealand and Tauranga Tourism Services—commenced at the Auckland District Court. Judge Evangelos Thomas presided over the judge-alone trial, which is expected to last four months. In addition to the Auckland courtroom, a virtual courtroom was established at Acacia House in Whakatane. Worksafe prosecuted the trial and summoned several witnesses and video interviews with defendants as testimony.

On the first day of the trial, a Mihi whakatau (Māori welcoming ceremony) was conducted by Reverend Otene Rewhiti of Ngati Whatua. That same day, several phone videos that had been recorded by tourists were played in court. WorkSafe prosecutor Kristy McDonald KC argued during the opening address that the defendants placed profit before safety. She also argued that WML failed to assess the risk posed by the volcano and criticised the company's lack of evacuation measures. McDonald also argued that the co-defendants ID Tours and Tauranga Tourism Services failed to warn tourists of the risks of visiting Whakaari. During the first week, the court hear testimony from tourists Matthew and Lauren Urey, Annie Lu, and Volcanic Air helicopter pilot Brian DePauw, who survived the Whakaari eruption.

During the second week, the court heard testimony from tourist Jesse Langford, who sustained severe burns and lost his entire family during the eruption. On 19 July, GNS Science principal scientist Dr Gillian Jolly testified that the active Whakaari volcano's alert level had been raised to Level Two in the days leading to the disaster due to signs of higher activity. She also testified that it was difficult to predict when the eruption would occur. On 21 July, Jolly admitted during cross-examination by the Buttle family and Whakaari Management Limited's lawyer James Cairney that GNS Science had not considered the increased volcanic unrest "a clear hazard." The court also heard evidence that tourists visiting Whakaari had worn active wear despite GNS Science's policy that scientists visiting the island wear overalls and gaiters.

During the third week, volcanologist Emeritus Professor Robert Stephen John Sparks of the University of Bristol testified on 24 July that tour groups on Whakaari were a "societal risk" due to Whakaari volcano's active status. He estimated that the volcano had a 30 percent probability of eruption, which translated to one every three years. Sparks also testified that there was a five percent chance that tour groups visiting Whakaari would be affected by an eruption, which he described as "a very high societal risk." On 27 July, White Island Tours general manager Patrick O'Sullivan testified that his tour company received a 12% commission from helicopter companies for every ticket sold, which amounted to a total of NZ$50,000 in the year leading up the 2019 eruption. He also testified that his company had provided a safety declaration document to cruise companies via co-defendant Tauranga Tourism Services; which contradicted survivors' testimony that they had received no warnings on the day of the eruption. The Buttles' lawyer James Cairney also testified that the brothers and tour companies regularly updated authorities including GNS Science about volcanic activity on the island.

August 2023
During the fifth week, expert witness Dr. Chris Peace, a Victoria University of Wellington lecturer in occupational health and safety,  testified on 31 July that it was unsafe to conduct tours on Whakaari due to its active volcanic status. On 2 August, Peace criticised the tour operators' decision to use a shipping container as a shelter on the island. Cairney also testified that the Buttle brothers did not conduct tours on Whakaarii but had a licensing agreement with the tour operators. He claimed that this license agreement did not "provide a power for WML to stop tours at any given time".

On 10 August, the Buttle brothers' sought a stay in the court proceedings, claiming that they were enduring a "manifestly unfair trial." The brothers also sought to get the charges levelled against them following the Whakaari eruption stayed or dismissed. On 23 August, the Buttle brothers' failed to get the charges against them in relation to the Whakaari eruption dismissed or levelled, allowing court proceedings to resume.

On 23 August Worksafe's 2020 interview with the Buttle brothers was played in the Auckland High Court. In the interview, James, Peter and Andrew said that GNS, Emergency Management Bay of Plenty and the tour operators regularly communicated but that the brothers did not get involved in the day-to-day management of the Whakaari. On 24 August, the Court was played a further interview where the brothers testified that they had installed a health and safety container on the island at the request of GNS  Science. Apart from the container, other infrastructure on the island included a helipad and jetty.

On 25 August, the Court was played an audio recording where the brothers found it difficult to answer WorkSafe's question on whether they owed a duty to the victims of the 2019 eruption. Peter also admitted the brothers were not volcano experts and lacked the means to monitor the island on a daily basis, forcing them to rely on other parties such as GNS. Peter also defended the brothers' efforts to ensure that the tour operators operated safely. WorkSafe also brought their final witness investigation manager Casey Broad, who led the Whakaari eruption investigation. Broad was questioned about Emergency Management Bay of Plenty's emergency response plan for Whakaari, which was developed in consultation with the Buttles, GNS, police, and Bay of Plenty Tourism between 2018 and 2019. When Cairney asked whether WorkSafe had some responsibility for risk management regarding the emergency response plan, Broad said this was not the case but acknowledged he had considered investigating the agency's role in overseeing Whakaari's adventure tourism activities. Broad also confirmed that WorkSafe had authorised a third-party to audit Whakaari adventure tourism operators, and that operators would be added to the agency's register of "persons conducting a business or undertaking" (PCBU) once they had passed the audit. That same day, WorkSafe investigators admitted that they had initially decided not to charge the Buttle brothers over the 2019 eruption due to concerns about insufficient evidence.

On 28 August, Cairney challenged Broad's claim that the Buttle brothers had failed "to take appropriate steps to improve health and safety standards" on Whakarii Island. During cross-examination, Cairney presented a 2013 email from Andrew Buttle to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advisor Stu Allan seeking his advice on health and safety issues that needed to be covered. Cairney argued that the defendants had tried to engage with MBIE on workplace health and safety matters.

On 31 August, Cairney's made a submission on behalf of the Buttle brothers seeking to have the charges against them dismissed. He claimed there were two faults in WorkSafe's case against the plaintiffs; the first that WorkSafe had treated the directors as one group rather as individuals during the trial and the second that WorkSafe had sought to treat breaches by WML and its directors as "if it was a one-director company." WorkSafe's lawyer Michael Hodge opposed the defendants' submission to dismiss their charges, defending its case against the Buttles.

September 2023
On 5 September, Judge Evangelos Thomas dismissed the individual charges against Peter, Andrew, and James Buttle; ruling in favour of the brothers' third submission to get their charges dismissed. However, their company Whakaari Management Limited still faces trial over the 2019 Whakaari eruption. On 6 September, the co-defendants ID Tours and Tauranga Tourism Services Limited (TTSL) applied for charges against them to be dismissed. ID Tours' lawyer David Neutze claimed that WorkSafe's case against the defendants was "confusing and conflicting." TTSL's lawyer Sarah Wroe disputed WorkSafe's case that the defendants did not work with each other and White Island Tours to provide tourists with updated health and safety information about the Whakaari volcano.

On 12 September, Judge Thomas dismissed the charges against ID Tours and Tauranga Tourism Services. He accepted the defendants' arguments that the two companies did not owe a duty to the tourist on Whakaari under the Health and Safety at Work Act since they did not influence or direct the tour operators' workers, and that the companies were "elements" of the supply chain "facilitating a specific and risky product with clearly identifiable consumers." WorkSafe's lawyer Steve Symon disagreed with Thomas' decision, arguing that the companies had a duty of care to their customers since they were involved in facilitating tours to Whakaari.

On 21 September, Judge Thomas heard closing arguments from both WorkSafe and Whakaari Management Limited's lawyers. The prosecutor Kristy McDonald KC argued that the Buttle brothers failed to invest the profits from the fees and commissions that WML earned into managing health and safety risks on Whakaari island. She argued that WML had legal obligations to ensure the safety and well-being of tourists whose fees supported the company's business operations. Defence lawyer Cairney contended that the brothers had set up WML solely to manage the financial side of granting licenses and that the company was not responsible for running tourist operations on Whakaari, which was the responsibility of parties like White Island Tours. He also argued that WML did not have the ability to stop tours. Judge Thomas is expected to release his decision on WorkSafe's case against WML in 31 October 2023.

October 2023
On 31 October, Judge Thomas convicted Whakaari Management Limited of one charge of breaching its duty under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. He ruled that WorkSafe had proved that the company was not a "passive landowner" but had a "relevant duty.. to ensure that the health of safety of persons it permitted to be on Whakaari was not put at risk." He also found that WML had not done proper risk assessments on Whakaari and had failed to engage with experts at GNS Science. Thomas also ruled that WML had failed to have built facilities that would have mitigated the volcanic risk, provided workers and tourists with personal protective equipment, and ensured a means of evacuation. He however dismissed the second charge that WML was responsible for ensuring the health and safety of workers and tourists. WML and the six other parties are expected to be sentenced in February 2024, with the sentencing expected to take two weeks.

Civil lawsuits
In April 2020, legal action was commenced in Australia on behalf of relatives and Ovation passengers against the cruise-ship operator Royal Caribbean International.

Several injured tourists filed lawsuits against the cruise liner Royal Caribbean and the New Zealand–based tour company ID Tours in the United States and Australia. American couple Lauren Barham and Matthew Urey filed a lawsuit against Royal Caribbean, ID Tours, and White Island Tours for negligence at the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, claiming that the defendants had ample warning that the volcano was on the brink of eruption but had failed to warn passengers who had signed up for the crater excursion.

Depiction in media
The eruption and the experiences of those on the island have been depicted in various media formats, with the majority being filmed interviews and documentaries about tourists' personal experiences. The eruption was also heavily documented by day trippers and other individuals on boats surrounding the island, along with at least one member of the tour groups who took a photo of the start of the eruption with her phone. One survivor, Stephanie Browitt, began using the social media platform TikTok to document her experiences on the island along with her immediate and continued recovery, as well as pay tribute to her father and sister, who died in the eruption. She wore compression garments and took them off in 2022.

The scientific response to the eruption and the recovery mission was highlighted in a documentary. A documentary titled The Eruption; Stories of Survival was released in December 2020 and documents the eruption through survivors' accounts and interviews with family members of those who died in the eruption. In December 2022, Netflix released The Volcano: Rescue from Whakaari and used first person accounts along with footage of the eruption and its aftermath, to document the time leading up to, during and after the eruption.

Survivor accounts were also highlighted in an episode of 60 Minutes Australia, in which some survivors made accusations of inaction towards rescue efforts which potentially caused needless deaths. Similar remarks were made in a Four Corners documentary. In an interview with 60 Minutes, a medical director, Tony Smith, remarked that authorities could have reached the island much sooner, but that "the information we were receiving at that time was that it was unsafe to land on the island." However, Smith also expressed doubt that many more lives could have been saved even if they had landed on the island sooner.

Responses
Ray Cas, a professor emeritus from Monash University, and past president of the International Association for Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior, published comments about the disaster through the Australian Science Media Centre, claiming that the incident was "a disaster waiting to happen". He felt that the island was too dangerous to allow the daily tour groups that visited.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that "the scale of this tragedy is devastating". On 10 December, Ardern met emergency services personnel who responded to the incident. The local member of Parliament Anne Tolley stated that the town of Whakatāne was shattered by the disaster and their thoughts were with the victims and their families but did not rule out that the tours would continue due to the disaster occurring. Tolley claimed the tours were "iconic" and a "centrepiece of the town's tourism".

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated that "This is a very, very hard day for many families whose loved ones have been caught up in this terrible, terrible tragedy" and announced that an Australian Federal Police forensic team was sent to New Zealand to assist. The Australian Parliament House also lowered its flags at half-mast.

See also

  – similar phreatic eruption with fatalities

Notes

References

External links
 Detailed multimedia coverage of the eruption and casualties by Stuff

2019 natural disasters
21st-century volcanic events
December 2019 events in New Zealand
Volcanic eruptions in New Zealand
Phreatic eruptions
VEI-2 eruptions
2019 disasters in New Zealand

2019 Whakaari / White Island eruption


Durant Motors of New York, New York, first used the Frontenac marque in 1931 on vehicles built and sold in Canada.  The Canadian Durant firm was acquired by a group of Canadian investors Jan 14 1931 (Toronto Star Jan 14 1931) and renamed Dominion Motors Limited.  The firm continued building Durant and Frontenac cars.  The first Frontenac, for 1931, was model 6-18, a 109-inch-wheelbase car based on the Durant 619.

After Durant Motors went under in 1932, Dominion Motors switched to De Vaux for a source of car designs.  The 1932 Frontenac range consisted of two sixes, E 6-70 (109-inch wheelbase), an update of the 1931 E 6-18, and the 6-85 (114-inch wheelbase) based on the De Vaux 6-80.

And just as Durant got into trouble, so did De Vaux. The firm was taken over by its major creditor, Continental Motors, in late 1932. Continental decided to continue car production under the Continental name and Dominion Motors decided to base their cars on Continental vehicles.   Just as the 1933 Continental line consisted of three models, so did Frontenac.

The last Frontenac models were the C-400, a -inch-wheelbase four-cylinder car based on the Continental Beacon and the C-600, based on the 107-inch-wheelbase, six-cylinder Continental Flyer.  Frontenac imported the 114-inch-wheelbase Continental Ace, putting a Frontenac nameplate on the grille and selling them as the Frontenac Ace.

Although Continental continued into 1934, Frontenac called it quits in 1933.  Dominion Motors also built Reo cars and trucks for the Canadian market.   Reo continued to use the plant into the early 1950s and in 1950 and 1951 Kaiser used part of the plant to assemble Kaiser sedans for the Canadian market.

Only Dominion carried on and Continental was already out of the picture in 1934 and the majority of the plant was being operated by Reo on its own, 1934 into the 1950s.

Riverdale Tire & Auto Exchange bought up the entire stock from Dominion.

On January 5, 1934, Riverdale Tire & Auto Exchange announced the purchased of Dominion Motors' stock of cars and trucks. A March 12, 1934 advertisement advised 75% of the stock of Dominions was sold, advising the Standard four-cylinder sedan offered a radio.

Dominion Motors Ltd finally sold off their last section of factories and the remaining lands to Frigidaire on June 23, 1944 which ended the only all Canadian owned and operated car co since.

Sources
Zavitz, Perry R. Canadian Cars, 1946–1984, Bookman Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland, 1985,
Canadian Automotive Information Handbook, Canadian Automotive Information Service, Oakville, Ontario, 1939.

References

Durant Motors
Cars of Canada
Cars introduced in 1931
Vehicle manufacturing companies disestablished in 1944
1931 establishments in Ontario
1944 disestablishments in Ontario
Vehicle manufacturing companies established in 1931
Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of Canada
Economic history of Canada
Canadian companies established in 1931

Dominion Motors Frontenac


Doctor Diego Ladrón de Guevara Orozco Calderón (1641 in Cifuentes, Spain – September 9, 1718) was a Roman Catholic bishop and Spanish colonial administrator. From August 30, 1710, to March 2, 1716, he was viceroy of Peru.

Before his term as viceroy
He studied theology at the University of Alcalá de Henares, where he was later professor of law. He also taught at the University of Sigüenza.

In 1689 he was appointed bishop of Panama and consecrated by Miguel Antonio de Benavides y Piedrola, Bishop of Cartagena. then in the Viceroyalty of Peru. That year he was jailed by order of Governor and Captain General José de Guzmán y Ávalos, with whom he had personal differences. In 1695 he added the additional responsibility of president of the Audiencia of Panama.

He served in Panama until 1699, when he was named bishop of Ayacucho (or Huamanga) in what is still Peru. He opened the University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga (founded in 1677) there, and was its first rector. This university was opposed by the older University of San Marcos. In 1703 he was appointed bishop of Quito (also in the Viceroyalty of Peru), where he served until his resignation in 1710 to take up the position of viceroy.

His administration
He replaced Miguel Núñez de Sanabria, president of the Audiencia of Lima, who had been serving as viceroy in an interim capacity. Ladrón de Guevara had been named in the sealed instructions brought by the previous viceroy, Manuel de Oms y de Santa Pau as the successor in the event of Oms's death.

As viceroy, he increased the production of silver in the mines of Potosí, and stimulated production in other mines at San Nicolás, Cajatambo and Huancavelica. He limited the manufacture of aguardiente from sugar cane to authorized factories, which he taxed heavily. He had to take measures against the threat of privateers, in spite of the signing of the Peace of Utrecht in 1713, and against an uprising of slaves at the hacienda of Huachipa de Lima.

He approved the reconstruction of the cathedral of Lima, and the construction of some other churches, including La Buena Muerte and the convent of Mínimos de San Francisco de Paula. He established a chair of anatomy at the University of San Marcos. The Peace of Utrecht allowed the British to send ships and merchandise to the fair at Portobello.

After his term as viceroy
He was denounced in the royal courts for embezzlement, and removed from office in 1716. He was replaced on an interim basis by Mateo de la Mata Ponce de León, president of the Audiencia of Lima. Ladrón de Guevara went to New Spain. Before his death there, he arranged that the remains of his relative, Diego Landa Calderón, former bishop of Yucatán, be returned to Spain. He died on September 9, 1718, in Mexico City and was buried in the cathedral there.

References

External links and additional sources
 (for Chronology of Bishops)
 (for Chronology of Bishops)
 (for Chronology of Bishops)
 (for Chronology of Bishops)
 (for Chronology of Bishops)
 (for Chronology of Bishops)

External links
 Brief biography
 Short biography
 Some details of his administration
Information at Catholic Hierarchy
 University of San Cristóbal de Huamanga (.pdf document)

1641 births
1718 deaths
Viceroys of Peru
Royal Governors of Panama
17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Peru
18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Ecuador
17th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Panama
Roman Catholic bishops of Panamá
Roman Catholic bishops of Quito
Roman Catholic bishops of Ayacucho

Diego Ladrón de Guevara


Melakkal is a village in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu, India, where the grave of Varushai Syed Ibrahim Waliullah is found.

Demographics
Melakkal is a village surrounded by Nagamalai hills in the north, Vaigai river in the south.

Kanavai Dargha
Varushai Syed Ibraheem Shaheed Waliullah is the descendant of Sulthan Syed Ibrahim Shahhed Badusha Nayagam of Erwadi. He is the grandfather of Mursal Ibrahim Shaheed, whose dargah is located in Thachu oorani near Mayakulam, between Kilakkarai and Ervadi in the East Coast Road. Thus he is the great-grandfather of Nalla Ibrahim Waliyullah whose is the forefather of all the levvai mujavirs (huqdhars) of Erwadi dargah. The dargah of Nalla Ibrahim (who is actually named Muhammad Ibraim) is located Erwadi main dargah campus.

Villages in Madurai district
Tourist attractions in Madurai

Melakkal Kanavai


The Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926 (16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 8) was an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland that was passed for the purpose of making provision for the protection of the community in Northern Ireland in cases of emergency.

The Act gave the Governor of Northern Ireland the authority to declare a state of emergency and issue proclamations if:

"...at any time it appears to the Governor of Northern Ireland that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community in Northern Ireland, or any substantial portion of that community, of the essentials of life..."

Proclamations of emergency would be in force until the Governor themselves revoked it. The Governor, by Order in the Privy Council of Northern Ireland,  would also issue regulations to secure the 'essentials of life to the community' and give powers to the relevant Minister of the government of Northern Ireland to also secure essentials, as defined above.

Regulations had to be laid before Parliament as soon as they were issued and could not be used to 'make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike' or take away trials. The maximum punishment for breaking a regulation would be prison 'with or without hard labour, for a term of three months, or a fine of one hundred pounds, or both such imprisonment and fine, together with the forfeiture of any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed'. Regulations could also be revised or added to.

The Act was amended by the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.

On 19 May 1974 Merlyn Rees, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, signed a proclamation of a State of Emergency in the region under the amended Act, following the outbreak of the Ulster Workers' Council strike which eventually led to the collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement.

The Act was repealed by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

See also
Emergency Powers Act 1920

References

External links
Text of the Act

Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland 1926
Emergency laws in the United Kingdom
Politics of Northern Ireland
Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland