“I’m really mad. I’m finding dead turtles, birds, giant fish and other animals all over the beach. No one comes by to clean them up right away and people come down here and let their kids play next to them. And the water looks like chicken broth.
””It’s so sad,” says Mississippi coastal resident Laurel Lockamy who found a dead sea turtle over the weekend wrapped in orange tape, ready for retrieval.Turtles are just the latest sea life deaths to get federal attention.
So far this year, at least 134 dolphins have been found stranded along the Gulf coast, about four times the average number. Nearly half of the dolphins were newborns or juveniles. Earlier this year NOAA issued an Unusual Mortality Event for dolphins, which triggers a federal investigation into the deaths.
First the people counting the affected wildlife only considered a small number of key indicator species, rather than tallying all of them found. And, then the reports coming in like this one which indicates there is not really any reasonably coordinated manner to add in the multitude of marine animal deaths that have been occurring along the entire Gulf of Mexico corridor. And, on top of that, there will be thirty more years of studying made from those deaths before anyone at the EPA or in any of these states will say they can be in any way attributable to the oil industry spill and Deepwater Horizon spill or the toxic chemical dispersant COREXIT used immediately during and after the spill at the insistence of BP.
And, worst of all – when I noticed what Qaddafi incorporated was demanding and getting from the oil industry concerning the oil harvesting in Libya, compared to what the US and any of the states along the Gulf Coast of the US receive – it is just wrong, way wrong. The oil companies paid a billion dollar sign on bonus to Libya (Qaddafi) and only get to receive 12% of the profits from the oil while Libya and the Qaddafi family through the Libya Investment Authority would get the rest. And, the oil companies had to pay for the equipment, engineering, harvesting, retrieval and drilling (and transport facilities / shipping and pipelines) for that oil at their own expense and not Libya’s. We’re doing it completely backasswards to that. And, then getting screwed, I might add – every time there is something that goes wrong and we have to pay for it. We also get higher prices on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel every time there is a whisper of something that might go wrong in all of it. And, we’re subsidizing their industry at every level of it.
It was our USGS that examined and studied the shale oil deposits for the oil industry, and the deep-sea offshore reserves, the onshore oil reserves, the Alaska oil reserves, the Minnesota oil reserves, and most of those around the world for them too – at our expense. Along with other tax breaks, incentives, industry subsidies, refinery and shipping subsidies, odd little engineering subsidies for these off-shore derricks and the subsea transport systems and robotics to get the oil off loaded, etc. , etc., etc., – we’ve been screwed.
And, it never ends even though their profits and returns are through the roof.
– cricketdiane
***
Maybe we just need to hire the Qaddafi family to get our oil companies to treat us right and get him and his bunch out of Libya where they can’t do anything but damage the people there. Maybe they need to be the ones getting the oilfield deals made for us – or someone doing it in the manner that they have – among our states and US government agencies involved with it.
From the article – everyone needs to read it in America, including my children and parents, aunts, uncles, friends, acquaintances and anyone reading this durn blog –
At least it explains why the price of oil is going up and why when it does go up for contracts that won’t be delivered for three – four months, that we still watch the little sign at the gas station go up three to four times a day upwards –
(and prices of everything else quickly accommodate that despite none of them having bought any gasoline or jet fuel at those prices yet.)
– cricketdiane
A couple bits of this article (from the link above) –
Power plants, gas stations, fuel distributors, and oil companies across the globe paid close attention to this rarefied casino, watching carefully for any price changes that would determine how much they would pay for fuel and what they’d charge their customers, the ordinary consumer. Newspapers and television networks trumpeted Nymex’s prices as the holy gospel, beaming them throughout the continents for all to follow—banks, hedge funds, Wall street investors, even the top-producing oil nations of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Norway.
D’Agostino: No. OPEC only sets the oil supply. . . . The price of oil is actually set in New York. . . .
O’Reilly: Is there a guy who says $125 a barrel?
D’Agostino: No. There’s a huge market. It’s filled with hedgers. It’s filled with speculators. It’s filled with moms and dads, average Americans. It’s a big market that sets the price.
O’Reilly: somebody has to put the $125 on the barrel. Who does it?
(an excerpt from the Bill O’Reilly show included in the text, the first paragraph is from the author of the article and book that serves as its basis) – well worth reading the whole thing, my note.
This report from Financial Times states that the Qaddafi regime has continued to receive money from oil exports – including $770 million in the last two weeks. It is also clear from this article that nations who signed agreement to the Security Council resolution to freeze assets have failed to hold those oil income revenues for the people of Libya after Qaddafi’s regime has ended, which is what they are supposed to do and what the companies involved are supposed to do legally.
That is one article of interest –
and this is another about the efforts to put pressure on the international community in the ways that it suits Qaddafi, his sons, his daughter and their government ministers involved in decision-making. It looks a lot like they have a lobbying firm/ pr / and some consulting firm working with them to strategically interact with their efforts to sway public opinion and international options that have been already taken.
Wouldn’t it just be easier for the Qaddafi regime to simply stop killing their own people, not hinder the exodus of international citizens who wish to leave, not brutalize any more of the people within their range and make some more reasonable choices?
If it turns out that some consulting firm from Washington or the UK is helping these bastards of the Qaddafi regime, I do hope they understand that they are breaking the international sanctions that have been brought to bear on the criminal behavior and human rights violations that are being perpetrated by the Qaddafi family. And, it will be discovered before everything is done – regardless of how much money the firm has been paid. I was thinking of some of those kinds of firms which have helped the Qaddafi regime in the past which brought us to this nightmare in the first place.
Here is one of the other articles I found in the last little bit –
When Congress considered whether to regulate more closely the handling of wastes from oil and gas drilling in the 1980s, it turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to research the matter. E.P.A. researchers concluded that some of the drillers’ waste was hazardous and should be tightly controlled.
But that is not what Congress heard. Some of the recommendations concerning oil and gas waste were eliminated in the final report handed to lawmakers in 1987.
E.P.A. officials told her, she said, that her findings were altered because of pressure from the Office of Legal Counsel of the White House under Ronald Reagan. A spokesman for the E.P.A. declined to comment.
“It was shameful,” Weston Wilson, the E.P.A. whistleblower, said in a recent interview about the study. He explained that five of the seven members of that study’s peer review panel were current or former employees of the oil and gas industry.
Politics Seen to Limit E.P.A. in Regulation of Natural Gas
Published: March 3, 2011 (NY Times)
For example, the agency had planned to call last year for a moratorium on the gas-drilling technique known as hydrofracking in the New York City watershed, according to internal documents, but the advice was removed from the publicly released letter sent to New York.
(from the first page of the article above)
***
My Note –
I watched Dick Morris last night on O’Reilly over on the FoxNews broadcast repeat, “No Compromise,” “No Compromise,” when they were talking about the current Republican efforts and plans in Wisconsin and in Washington and elsewhere. (generally – it would be worth going back to find the exact moments when he said it because the facial expressions and interaction with O’Reilly along with Dick’s body language say a lot.)
He was also there promoting his book which Mr. Morris claims is the plan to be taken for the Republicans to win in 2012 and in every state where these barely won elections have given them a place to push their agenda to specifically gut all the programs in place now.
As I was reading some of the things about hydrofracking the other day, (which was an thoroughly extensive article, I’ll go get the link) and thinking that they’ve known these things the whole time, why wasn’t something created to fix this. And, then found this article today which explains a lot. A program that is forced to alter scientific and researched results cannot possibly define what the problems are that must be addressed and “fixed”.
When the EPA and other scientists were not allowed to report their findings compelling action based on the science and the actual facts of the situation, it left problems unaddressed, unsolved and unfunded for the solutions to be developed.
At any time, our universities could have researched solutions for these waste products from hydrofracking, it could very easily be solved with an addition of a system, process or neutralizing effort to reclaim those contaminants from the water. Our business leaders could have encouraged the finding of those solutions to be added to what is being used by the natural gas drillers that are using hydrofracking processes. Right now, each one spends something around $2 million dollars a year to have the waste water dumped into the rivers or water treatment systems which are not capable of handling it. For $2 million dollars, surely there are systems which could be defined, created and added which would reclaim the radioactive and other toxic chemical products from the water before adding it to the existing water systems and rivers.
In fact, it probably wouldn’t cost $2 million dollars and it would provide excess revenue streams to collect and sell these other “elements” to industries who are desperate to have them. It isn’t good thinking, nor good business to create the problems, pretend the problems don’t exist, pressure Congress and the EPA to hinder the facts about these problems being reported or studied and defined, nor to ignore these problems in need of solutions.
It says that the intentions of the Republican Party members now planning to further their previous agendas with the same heavy hand as always with an insistence on “No Compromise” – will end with no loss for profit-makers, no requirements for change to how profit-makers are doing things now and no regulations to force them to take into account the science and safety and pollution of what they are doing in order to do it a different way or add solutions to accommodate fixing those problems (issues).
That has already been a costly way to do things. And, what I don’t think the Republicans understand whose power plays are now creating chaos, distraction and waste of Congressional and state resources in time and decision-making, is that we are all on the same team. We all want natural gas prices and production costs to be kept low to have it available to us at the most reasonable price possible. But, we don’t want to pollute the bed where we all most sleep and thoroughly contaminate the only water we have to drink.
The Republicans have cut the super fund cleanup funding for many, many years. And, they forced certain research, studies and science about these chemicals involved in the need for superfund cleanup to be “edited” in their content. The only thing that has done is to leave the problems to us now, including the health disasters that have been created. There is no escape from it.
If the rules of this war the Republicans have declared on America are “no compromise” as we have seen for the last two years with their complete “no” to everything that needed to be done for regulating the financial system gamers, for food safety inspections, for consumer safety commission working for the safety of American citizens rather than for the industries they are supposed to watchdog, etc., etc., etc., – then “no compromise” for our safety needs to be what America’s citizens and communities demand too.
No more compromise on wastes being sent into our water systems that have any harmful, toxic chemicals in them. The industries who are doing that can simply stop doing it right now. No compromise.
Mayor Bloomberg is very staunch about non-smoking in his city because of his concerns about the cancer it can cause. He was on the show about the Tobacco Wars on cnbc broadcast yesterday, describing how important to stop this because of cancer. So, why is there a petroleum cesspool in Brooklyn that hasn’t been cleaned up for over fifty years? He’s so concerned. Everyone that has lived in those areas that have been exposed to it have either died of cancer or get cancer or watch their children die from cancer – there are birth defects that are known to be higher in that area, cancers higher in that area and he is worried about the people smoking?
It doesn’t make any sense. And, there are places in the New York City area which will be affected by the hydrofracking wastes that are going into the water table, going into the rivers untreated to take out the radioactive and chemical wastes that are dumped by hundreds of millions of gallons into it, and sure to make its way into the drinking water available to every single member of Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City.
Surely he would find that an abomination. Any Republican that would sit in Washington and decide to fight against the EPA having power to do something about it also wouldn’t want their own children to drink that water downstream from these dumping sites and then watch the results over the course of their lives. They certainly wouldn’t want to drink that water everyday, cook with it, wash their collards with it, wash themselves in it and feed it to those they love.
See, this could be fixed. It just needs to be shown for what it is, the problems defined, funded and fixed. The business owners need to be reasonable and seek solutions that work better and more cheaply than what they are doing already which is known to be polluting (and is expensive, as well.) Funding for solutions can be offered when the problems are defined by the science unfettered, unedited and unhindered. The goals are the same. We all want a better, safer place to live to raise our families and we want cheap natural gas as a fuel and heating source. Can’t we do both?
Aren’t we smart enough to do both?
– cricketdiane
***
Also mentioned in the New York Times article –
“I am confident this study, if truly focused on hydraulic fracturing,” wrote Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, last April to the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, “will prove the process indisputably safe and acceptable.”
Last September, Senator James M. Inhofe, also a Republican from Oklahoma, wrote to agency officials to offer his guidance about who should be allowed to review the research.
“We caution against potential panelists who have been longtime critics of hydraulic fracturing,” he wrote in a letter.
Over their careers, the two lawmakers from Oklahoma, a major drilling state, have been among the Senate’s top 20 recipients of oil and gas campaign contributions, according to federal data.
(and)
These topics were cut from the current study plan, even though E.P.A. officials have acknowledged that sewage treatment plants are not able to treat drilling waste fully before it is discharged into rivers, sometimes just miles upstream from drinking water intake plants. While the current study plan clearly indicates that the agency plans to research various types of radioactivity concerns related to natural gas drilling, this river modeling, which E.P.A. scientists say is important, has been removed.
The risks are particularly severe in Pennsylvania, which has seen a sharp increase in drilling, with roughly 71,000 active gas wells, up from about 36,000 in 2000. The level of radioactivity in the wastewater has sometimes been hundreds or even thousands of times the maximum allowed by the federal standard for drinking water.
The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.But the relatively new drilling method — known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — carries significant environmental risks. It involves injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.
With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.
Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers
***
¶More than 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by Pennsylvania wells over the past three years, far more than has been previously disclosed. Most of this water — enough to cover Manhattan in three inches — was sent to treatment plants not equipped to remove many of the toxic materials in drilling waste.
¶At least 12 sewage treatment plants in three states accepted gas industry wastewater and discharged waste that was only partly treated into rivers, lakes and streams.
¶Of more than 179 wells producing wastewater with high levels of radiation, at least 116 reported levels of radium or other radioactive materials 100 times as high as the levels set by federal drinking-water standards. At least 15 wells produced wastewater carrying more than 1,000 times the amount of radioactive elements considered acceptable.
Mr. McCurdy, whose plant discharges into the Clarion River, which flows into the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, said his plant was taking about 20,000 gallons of drilling waste per day.
Like most of the sewage treatment plant operators interviewed, Mr. McCurdy said his plant was not equipped to remove radioactive material and was not required to test for it.
Documents filed by drillers with the state, though, show that in 2009 his facility was sent water from wells whose wastewater was laced with radium at 275 times the drinking-water standard and with other types of radiation at more than 780 times the standard.
***
I really want anyone interested in this and in their quality of life to go read this entire article above and the one from the New York Times at the beginning of this post. Do not take these few excerpts by my interest in it as the only important parts of these articles. They are well written, well- researched and hold a lot of critical information that the public (everyone in the public) needs to know. I’m using these for a specific line of thought that I have right now, which is that the creation of solutions to treat this wastewater need to be developed right now which will reclaim the toxic and radioactive elements from it before being sent into our water systems. It looks like a pressing need, the politics involved with what our Republican leaders backed by the oil and gas industry are trying not to get done with it make this very dangerous to the public throughout the country, and I think it can be fixed because I want to believe that. I don’t want my family dealing with the results of doing nothing but what they are doing already. Enough is enough.
– cricketdiane
***
And I noticed this the other day which is very important – (from the EU_)
Use of hazardous chemicals to be made safer
Published: 06 January 2011
In a drive to improve worker safety and consumer protection, the EU’s chemicals watchdog is set to publish in the coming months an inventory of over 20,000 chemicals declared hazardous by manufacturers and importers.
The inventory “will significantly improve safety by providing up-to-date information on all the hazardous substances that are on the EU market today,” said Geert Dancet, executive director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
(etc.)
An EU regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of chemical substances and mixtures (CLP) requires companies to classify, label and package appropriately hazardous chemicals before placing them on the market.
It aims to protect workers, consumers and the environment by means of labelling which reflects the potential hazardous effects of dangerous substances.
The regulation will implement at EU level the United Nations’ Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemical substances and mixtures.
European agency calls for limiting use of eight chemicals
20 December 2010, 17:11 CET
“These substances are in wide dispersive use, which means that not only are they used everywhere, but there is also a risk of exposure to humans and the environment,” the head of ECHA’s risk management unit Remi Lefevre told AFP.
The agency is calling for the chemicals, which are either cancer-causing or harmful to reproduction, to be used only with express permission from the European Commission.
All but one of the chemicals are used in large volumes in Europe, including chemicals found in various pigments and plasticisers, and one substance used in explosives.
Chemicals/REACH: six dangerous substances to be phased out by the EU
EU News – 18 Feb 2011 08:22
Six substances of very high concern will be banned within the next three to five years unless an authorisation has been granted to individual companies for their use.
These substances are carcinogenic, toxic for reproduction or persist in the environment and accumulate in living organisms.
European Commission Vice President Antonio Tajani, responsible for industry and entrepreneurship said: “Today’s decision is an example of the successful implementation of REACH and of how sustainability can be combined with competitiveness. It will encourage industry to develop alternatives and foster innovation.”
The following 6 chemicals are the first entrants in the Annex XIV:
5-ter-butyl-2,4,6-trinito-m-xylene (musk xylene),
4,4′-diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA),
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD),
bis(2-ethylexyl) phthalate (DEHP),
benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) and
dibutyl phthalate (DBP).
***
Big oil’s big cleanup in Brooklyn (or lack thereof, my note) –
October 20, 2010|By Allan Chernoff, CNN Senior Correspondent
Beneath the Brooklyn neighborhood of Greenpoint, New York, is a giant oil spill that BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron are slowly cleaning up.
The oil companies have been at it for three decades, putting into perspective BP’s pledge to residents of the Gulf states that its cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon spill will go on for “as long as it takes” to “make this right.”
This spill is different though. The oil is trapped in the ground, sitting on top of the water table, across more than 50 acres of residential and industrial blocks. In some areas it’s 3 feet under; at other points it’s as much as 50 feet underground. And some of the oil has been sitting there for 150 years.
(and)
But to neighborhood residents who complain of health effects, the cleanup is far too slow.
“This is Patrick McManis and he had stomach cancer. And this is my mother. My mother had the cervix cancer,” said Theresa Breznak shuffling through rosary cards of family and friends on Diamond Street who have been stricken with cancer.
“A lot of breast cancer. This is one of my best friends, she had breast cancer. And now her sister has it.” Breznak counts 40 people on the block who have either battled or died from cancer. (etc.)
The environmental mess goes back to the 1860s when oil refineries dotted the landscape along Newtown Creek (which the Environmental Protection Agency recently declared a Superfund site.) For a century, oil companies operated in the neighborhood, allowing petroleum to seep into the ground and spill into the water.
(also)
“It’s emissions that are coming out of the ground. Some of them have been known to be benzene fumes, which is a known carcinogen,” complains Tommy Stagg, another life-long resident of Diamond Street.In all, the energy companies have extracted more than 11 million gallons of petroleum since the early ’80s. But, last year New York state estimated there was still about 14 million gallons of oil remaining below the ground here.
The companies are extracting oil at a rate of about 900,000 gallons a year by injecting water into the ground at various sites around the neighborhood, then pumping out petroleum. At that rate, it’ll be well over a decade before the neighborhood is cleaned up.
My Note –
Okay, the New York City residents and leaders do understand that ground water doesn’t stay in the boroughs where they’ve made lines on a map between them, right? I mean – they understand that water, air, underground water, streams, water table resources and anything contaminating them – migrates wherever, right?
– cricketdiane
***
I am adding the category “Democracy” to this post because when people cannot safely live where they live – there isn’t any democracy, liberty or freedom being insured to these American citizens. Whether it is the love canal mess, or the disaster in the making all this time in Brooklyn and now from these wastewater disposal disasters as by-products of hydrofracking, the sicknesses and ill health generally takes away all the freedoms, liberty, democracy and opportunities guaranteed to individual citizens of America, as well as destroying personal potentials to a great life or accomplishment or enjoyment or the pursuit of happiness and any of a vast number of other things.
(scroll down the page under the map for sites with why they have been removed from the superfund cleanup lists either through actual remediation or political pressure)
***
(They’ve been finding these WWI munitions, arsenic, lewisite and other chemical weapons components on Washington, D.C.’s American University campus and the surrounding neighborhood since 1993, including some Lewisite and buried lab contents recently in September and October of 2009. The area is still filled with arsenic from the WWI chemical weapons lab and test firing compound that were originally in the area. – my note)
Washington D.C. Chemical Munitions
EPA ID# DCD983971136
NPL Status: Not on NPL
50th and Massachusettes
Washington, DC 20015
District of Columbia
Contacts
Remedial Project Manager
Steven Hirsh
215-814-3352
hirsh.steven@epa.gov
Community Involvement Coordinator
William Hudson
215-814-5532
hudson.william@epa.gov
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund |EPA Home | EPA Superfund Homepage
Washington, D.C. Army Chemical Munitions (Spring Valley)
Current Site Information
EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic)
Delaware
New Castle County
2 miles southwest of the City of New Castle
EPA ID# DCD983971136
1st Congressional District
Last Update: January 2009
Other Names
Spring Valley
Current Site Status
( . . . )
The USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) completed excavation of a a munitions pit on a residential property adjacent to, and owned by the American University. USACE is completing test trenching and arsenic contaminated soil removal at this and the adjoining property. All work at these two properties is expected to be complete in the fall of 2009. USACE is planning for destruction of recovered chemical and conventional munitions.
The USACE has sampled approximately 1,500 for arsenic to date. Twenty seven additional properties were added to the site in 2006 based on a review of real estate records. Sampling of these properties and land owned by the District within the site is complete. EPA and the District Department of Environment are issuing comfort letters to property owners where sampling and any required remediation has been completed. USACE is attempting to gain access to all properties not previously sampled (approximately 10), and 5 properties where sampling revealed arsenic above 20ppm, the site cleanup goal.
In September of 2005 ATSDR issued a Health Consultation for the Spring Valley Site. ATSDR recommended additional sampling of soil, groundwater and air in specific locations within the Spring Valley Site. The DC Council approved funding for a health study and a contract was awarded to Johns Hopkins for that study, and a report was released in 2007. The report concludes that the health of Spring Valley residents is good; better than National averages and consistent with a reference community with similar demographics. Additional DC funding may be allocated for follow-on work in FY’2010.
In late 2003 perchlorate was discovered in groundwater at the site. A groundwater study is underway. Thirty nine monitoring wells have been installed near the Dalecarlia reservoir, adjacent to waste and munition disposal sites in the Spring Valley neighborhood and in other selected locations. Groundwater sampling data collected between 2005 and 2007 has identified two locations in the site where groundwater is contaminated with perchlorate, and one location where groundwater is contaminated with arsenic at elevated levels. The groundwater study continues in 2009 and 2010 with installation of additional monitoring wells including four deep wells and another round of well and surface water sampling.
RAB meetings over the past year have focused the arsenic clean-up; disposal of recovered munitions, chemical sampling other than arsenic, completing site work and pursuit of additional funding to accelerate the cleanup. For more detailed information and updates on RAB issues, public meetings, and background, please access USACE’s web site by clicking on the Spring Valley internet site below:
The Army maintains a Spring Valley internet site.
Site Description
Spring Valley is located in the Northwest section of the District of Columbia, including the American University. During WWI this area was known as the American University Experimental Station and Camp Leach, a 660-acre facility used as a research and test center for chemical weapons. The experimental station and chemical laboratories were located on American University property.
In January, 1993 a contractor who was digging a utility trench unearthed World War I munitions in the Spring Valley area of the District of Columbia. During further investigations, munitions were discovered in pits located on the Korean Ambassador property, adjacent to American University and additional pits were also found on the adjacent residential property. The pit excavation and other work at the Korean property has been completed. An additional pit on the adjacent residence found numerous additional munitions and the work has not been completed yet. That work began in 2007 and was completed in 2009.
Arsenic-contaminated soil has been removed from the Child Development Center play area on American University. Soil removal actions have been completed on several American University Lots and at approximately 90 residential properties. Approximately 50 residential properties still require soil removal. All soil removal at residential properties should be complete in 2009. Soil remediation at Federal and District owned property is scheduled for 2010.
The site-wide soil cleanup standard for arsenic has been finalized at 20 ppm by EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the DC Health Department. The Mayor’s Science Advisory Panel has approved this standard. The arsenic contamination is the result of chemical warfare research carried out at the American University Experimental Station during WWI.
The Army Corps of Engineers budget for this site is approximately $11 million dollars per year. Site work is expected to continue thru 2011.
The USACE has completed excavation of lab waste and debris in an area near the boundary of the American University known as Lot 18. Numerous empty (scrap) munition and several intact bottles were removed from the site. One of the bottles was found to contain a small amount of Lewisite, a blister agent used at the site; a second bottle was found to contain mustard gas. Other chemical agent degradation products have been found in sealed containers. The USACE began excavation of additional lab debris in an adjacent area of the American University in 2008 and will complete the action in 2009.
Contaminant descriptions and risk factors are available from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the CDC.
The chemicals date to WWI, during which chemical weapons resulted in a million casualties and about 26,000 deaths. This area, Spring Valley, is home to Diane Feinstein and AG Eric Holder. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and George HW Bush all lived there before entering the White House.
The yard that causes the most concern is between the official residence of South Korea’s ambassador, Han Duk-soo, and the white-columned house of American University’s president, Cornelius Kerwin. Previous digs unearthed more than 300 munitions and chemical weapons debris on the South Korean property and toxic chemicals beside the AU house. (and the playground where children were playing and soccer had been practiced for years by University students, my note – and homes in the area where the toxic stuff was eeking up into their homes.)
A little more about the Washington, D.C. / Spring Valley toxic site –
Norton (D-D.C.) was given a status report by the corps, which has been directing the $170 million, 16-year cleanup of the munitions that are buried in scattered sites in the District’s Spring Valley neighborhood.
This month, workers were surprised when they found a flask containing residue of the blistering agent mustard buried in the yard of a vacant house in the 4800 block of Glenbrook Road NW. Officials said they had thought cleanup at that site was almost finished.
During World War I Spring Valley was an undeveloped area that the army used for testing chemical weapons. During excavations for new construction workers found unexploded ordnance, and scientists have found high levels of arsenic in the soil. The Army Corps of Engineers has undergone extensive testing and clean-up efforts in select parts of Spring Valley, a process that has been going on for years.
Several embassy residences are located in the neighborhood, such as the ambassador’s houses of South Korea, Bahrain, Qatar, and Yemen. Spring Valley’s median home sale price in 2007 was US$2.725 and in 2008 $3.022 million.[2]
[ All Sites | District of Columbia | Delaware | Federal Facilities | Maryland | Pennsylvania | Virginia | West Virginia ]
Site Name EPA ID NPL Status City County Zip State
Once a busy cargo transportation hub, the canal’s fate has mirrored the decline of domestic shipping via water. A legacy of serious environmental problems has troubled the area from the time the canal was first built out of the local tidalwetlands and fresh waterstreams. In recent years, there has been a call once again for environmental cleanup. In addition, development pressures have brought speculation that the wetlands of the Gowanus should serve waterfront economic development needs which may not be compatible with environmental restoration.
With much fanfare the US Army Corps of Engineers completed their last dredging of the canal in 1955 and soon afterward abandoned its regular dredging schedule, deeming it to be no longer cost effective. Brooklyn’s fuel trade was already converting from coal and artificial gas to petroleum, which was served by the wider and deeper Newtown Creek, and natural gas, which arrived by pipeline. With the early 1960s growth of containerisation, New York’s loss of industrial waterfront jobs during this period was evident on the canal and, with the failure of the city sewage and pump station infrastructure along the canal, Gowanus was used as a derelict dumping place. Remaining barge traffic mostly carried fuel oil, sand, gravel and scrap metal. At this point, the issue of revitalizing of the Gowanus area was raised.
In 1975 the City of New York established a Gowanus Industrial Renewal Plan for the area, which remains in effect until the year 2011. Since 1975, the surrounding community has been calling for the city, state, and federal governments to bring the full power of the Clean Water Act to bear on the environmental conditions left behind in this once thriving urban/industrial waterway.
The opaqueness of the Gowanus water obstructs sunlight to one third of the six feet needed for aquatic plant growth. Rising gas bubbles betray the decomposition of sewage sludge that on a ripe, warm day produces the canal’s notable stench. The murky depths of the canal conceal the remnants of its industrial past: cement, oil, mercury, lead, PCBs, coal tar, and other contaminants. In 1951, with the opening of the elevated Gowanus Expressway over the waterway, easy access for trucks and cars catalyzed industry slightly, but with 150 thousand vehicles passing overhead each day the expressway also deposits tons of toxic emissions into the air and water beneath.[6]
( . . . )
In 2002, the United States Army Corps of Engineers entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the DEP to collaborate on a $5 million Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study of the Gowanus Canal area to be completed in 2005, studying possible alternatives for ecosystem restoration such as dredging, and wetland and habitatrestoration. Discussions turned to breaking down the hard edges of the canal in order to restore some of the natural processes to improve the overall environment of the Gowanus wetlands area. The DEP also initiated the Gowanus Canal Use and Standards Attainment project, to meet the City’s obligations under the Clean Water Act. As of the summer 2009, the joint NYC/Army Corps Feasibility study has not been completed.[1]
In February 2009, the city of New York granted a zoning change to the developer, Toll Brothers Inc., allowing for a 480-unit, twelve-story, super-block residential project, the first permitted along the waterway.
In April 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that the canal be listed as a Superfund cleanup site.[14] This action was supported by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which had requested help from EPA to address the canal’s environmental problems. In May 2009, the city stepped forward to oppose the Superfund listing and offered, for the first time, to produce a Gowanus cleanup plan that would match the work of a Superfund cleanup, but with a promise to accomplish it faster. The city stated that it could now achieve a faster cleanup than EPA because the city would fund the cleanup through taxpayer dollars from the state and city levels, while the EPA would seek its funding from the polluters.[15] On March 4, 2010, the EPA announced that it had placed the Gowanus Canal on its Superfund National Priorities List. [16][17]
A comprehensive survey of the drinking water for more than 28 million Americans has detected the widespread but low-level presence of pharmaceuticals and hormonally active chemicals.
Little was known about people’s exposure to such compounds from drinking water, so Shane Snyder and colleagues at the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas screened tap water from 19 US water utilities for 51 different compounds. The surveys were carried out between 2006 and 2007.
The 11 most frequently detected compounds – all found at extremely low concentrations – were:
• Atenolol, a beta-blocker used to treat cardiovascular disease
• Sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic used against the Streptococcus bacteria, which is responsible for tonsillitis and other diseases
• TCEP, a reducing agent used in molecular biology
• Trimethoprim, another antibiotic
Christian Daughton of the EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory says that neither this nor other recent water assessments give cause for health concern. “But several point to the potential for risk – especially for the fetus and those with severely compromised health.”
Daughton says the contamination surveys help people realise how they are intimately and inseparably connected with their environment. “The occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the environment also serves to make us acutely aware of the chemical sea that surrounds us,” he says.
About the above chemicals and pharmaceuticals found in water and the idea that it really makes no difference – the words to apply are “cumulative effects.” No one is drinking just one drop of water like that which they analyzed. The amount of water consumed in a day isn’t even accurate because of how many things were cooked in water, grown with water from public water sources, how many water sources permeated the skin each day, how many days, months and years these things were continuously consumed or a part of everyday living and the manner in which these chemicals and pharmaceuticals interact with the existing body chemistry and cell metabolism. It isn’t just a problem for those with compromised health, babies and children – it is affecting everyone negatively.
And, since that isn’t the only thing in the ground water being used to water our fields, nor is it the only toxic chemistry in our drinking water and the water sources where our drinking water is derived – the chemical questions it raises are phenomenal. And, they are phenomenal in very bad health consequences for nearly all of our population, all of our children, all of our wildlife, and all of our future generations in the United States. This might need to get fixed right now instead of waiting another thirty years to do it.
“Drinking water with elevated levels of radium and uranium – which are found in … and water – may cause cancer after several years,” the US Environmental …
BELLINGHAM, Wash., March 1 (UPI) — Scientists say a pioneering system providing safe drinking water for millions of people in Asia is now being tested in …
A new health study found drinking water in 31 out of 35 U.S. cities contaminated by a dangerous form of chromium known as hexavalent chromium.
The recent studies by environmental and public health groups shed new light on the extent of drinking water contamination in America and the potential sources of that contamination. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) commissioned water sampling and testing for hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6. The results, published in the report Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water, found that more than 26 million people are serviced by the water utilities in the 31 cities where chromium-6 was detected. However, the report represents a one-time “snapshot” of the water quality in 35 cities, and without regular monitoring, the full threat to public health is unknown.
Chromium is found in many forms, and the two most prevalent forms are trivalent chromium (chromium-3) and chromium-6. In small amounts, chromium-3 is a vital nutrient needed for healthy human metabolism, but chromium-6 is a known carcinogen and dangerous even in small amounts. Chromium-6 was the toxin contaminating the drinking water of Hinkley, CA, the case made famous by the 2000 film Erin Brockovich. California is currently the only state that requires water utilities to test for hexavalent chromium.
California environmental officials recently revised a proposed “public health goal” for chromium-6 in drinking water. The state’s environmental agency originally proposed a goal of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) of hexavalent chromium in tap water. That figure was lowered to 0.02 ppb to better protect vulnerable populations such as children. However, the EWG report states that California’s water testing methods cannot detect levels of hexavalent chromium in amounts below 1 ppb, 16 times higher than what the state considers the maximum safe level. (etc.)
The report, EPA’s Blind Spot: Hexavalent Chromium in Coal Ash, draws on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports and other studies to identify 28 coal ash dump sites in 17 states that have contaminated groundwater with chromium at levels far above the public health goal proposed by the state of California. According to the report’s authors, the contaminated coal ash dump sites “are likely the tip of the iceberg,” and EPA regulators are operating with a “blind spot” that misses this significant source of water contamination.
The report also uncovered a study by an electric utility industry group, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), that found that 97 to 100 percent of the chromium leaching from coal ash impoundments is the deadly chromium-6. This industry study tested water at 29 coal ash landfills and ponds, finding chromium-6 at 15 coal ash dump sites at levels hundreds of times greater than the proposed California goal. However, the locations of these dumps are unknown, identified only by a number.
The other gross source of Hexavalant Chromium is in the mixing facilities for cement and concrete, especially the high white variety and through the processes in use today in nearly every community – these sources become easily airborne. These could be fixed easily, but in more communities they are allowed to become airborne and fill the air and homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, (and schools, and businesses, and anywhere the citizens might be breathing or ingesting things that have been coated with it when the dust settles from the air.)
– cricketdiane
***
Also – from recent budget hearings for the EPA opening comments by Barbara Boxer (D, Calif.) –
In stark contrast to the President’s support for EPA’s essential work to protect our children and families, the recently passed House Continuing Resolution would cut EPA’s overall budget — and the critical public health protections EPA provides — by 30 percent this year. This represents the largest cut to any Federal agency.
It would cut an astounding $2 billion from EPA’s water infrastructure and water quality protection programs. These cuts mean that our drinking water has a far greater chance of contamination. These cuts also mean thousands of jobs lost – jobs that relate to clean water infrastructure.
The CR would cut funds to clean up and redevelop brownfields by 30 percent from 2010 enacted levels – threatening the 5,000 jobs that EPA estimates this program supports.
The House budget would slash 45 percent from the 2010 enacted level for federal aid to state, local and tribal governments to protect our communities from dangerous pollution.
It also includes backdoor efforts to undermine EPA authorities that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.
These attempts to undercut landmark public health protections comes as EPA just released a new report showing that the Clean Air Act provides $30 in benefits for every $1 invested. This report also shows that the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days and 1.7 million asthma attacks in the year 2010 alone.
We are facing tough economic times, but tough times call for intelligent decision-making and wisdom, not reckless cuts that will do more harm than good – cuts that will lead to illness and premature death.
We must protect the health of our children, while also building clean technology industries that can fuel the nation’s economy in the coming decades.
We have seen that protecting the health of our families and economic growth go hand in hand. Since the year Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, US GDP has risen by 207 percent.
The United States is also the world’s largest producer and consumer of environmental technology goods and services. This industry has approximately 119,000 firms. It supports almost 1.7 million jobs and generates $300 billion in revenues — including $43.8 billion in exports. Why take an axe to these industries?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER FULL COMMITTEE HEARING: “HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED EPA BUDGET FOR FY 2012”
States News Service
March 2, 2011
***
The characteristic greenish-gray to brown color of ordinary Portland cement derives from a number of transitional elements in its chemical composition. These are, in descending order of coloring effect, chromium, manganese, iron, copper, vanadium, nickel and titanium. The amount of these in white cement is minimized as far as possible. Cr2O3 is kept below 0.003%, Mn2O3 is kept below 0.03%, and Fe2O3 is kept below 0.35% in the clinker. The other elements are usually not a significant problem. Portland cement is usually made from cheap, quarried raw materials, and these usually contain substantial amounts of Cr, Mn and Fe.
In Scandinavia, France and the UK, the level of chromium(VI), which is considered to be toxic and a major skin irritant, may not exceed 2 ppm (parts per million).
“The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality was informed this week that the Arizona Portland Cement Co. failed a second round of testing for emissions of hazardous air pollutants at the company’s Rillito plant near Tucson. The latest round of testing, performed in January 2003 by the company, is designed to ensure that the facility complies with federal standards governing the emissions of dioxins and furans, which are byproducts of the manufacturing process.” [14] Cement Reviews’ “Environmental News” web page details case after case of environmental problems with cement manufacturing.[15]
CEMEX (BMV: CEMEX / NYSE: CX) is the world’s largest building materials supplier and third largest cement producer.[1] Founded in Mexico in 1906, the company is based in Monterrey, Mexico. CEMEX has operations extending around the world, with production facilities in 50 countries in North America, the Caribbean, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
As of late 2003, CEMEX had annual cement production capability of 82 million tons and over 25,000 employees. Lorenzo Zambrano is the current chairman and chief executive officer. About one-third of the company’s sales come from its Mexico operations, a quarter from its plants in the U.S., 15% from Spain, and smaller percentages from its plants around the world.[citation needed]
CEMEX currently operates on four continents, with 66 cement plants, 2,000 ready-mix-concrete facilities, 400 quarries, 260 distribution centers and 80 marine terminals.[2] The company’s world headquarters are in San Pedro Garza García, a city that is part of the Monterrey metropolitan area in the northeastern Mexican state of Nuevo León. [3][4][5][6][7]
CEMEX has been accused of violating environmental laws in the United States. Environmental watchdog groups and the United States Environmental Protection Agency are threatening to file suit claiming the company has committed numerous violations of the Clean Air Act in Lyons, Colorado.[19] The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also filed suit against CEMEX in Victorville, California, claiming the company failed to install modern air pollution controls, despite spending millions in renovations.[20]
In the United Kingdom, CEMEX was originally fined £400,000 on October 2006 after hazardous dust was deposited up to three miles (5 km) away from its Rugby works. The fine was the highest ever given under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulations, and was also the highest for an Environment Agency prosecution for six years.[21]. The fine was however judged excessive by the Court of Appeal and so reduced to £50,000.[22].
During tests conducted from June 10 to August 5, 2008, the Monterey Bay (California) Unified Air Pollution Control District reported high levels of Chromium VI, also known as Hexavalent Chromium, a cancer causing chemical agent, at an elementary school and fire department in Davenport, California. Chromium VI is the contaminant that inspired the movie, “Erin Brockovich“. The toxic substance apparently originated from dust emitted by the Cemex Cement plant in Davenport, as the levels of Chromium VI measured eight times the air district’s acceptable level at Pacific Elementary School and 10 times at the Davenport Fire Department. Both are located less than a half-mile from CEMEX.[23] Chromium VI may have been unwittingly produced at the CEMEX plant in Davenport for the last seven years. According to Ed Kendig, the executive director of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, it’s “highly possible” that Chromium VI continues to be produced across the country as an accidental, previously unknown byproduct of the cement-making process.[24]
In 2007, the EPA filed a complaint against CEMEX for violating federal air regulations at its Victorville, CA plant, and in 2006, CEMEX was cited for violations at plants in Santa Barbara and Michigan. [24]
In April 2007, CEMEX announced that it had installed a £6.5 million dust abatement system at the same works in Rugby, which had cut particulate emissions by 80%. The site comes under the auspices of the EU Waste Incineration Directive as it burns waste tyres for fuel. There are concerns over the impact on both the environment and human health from this practice, although it is common practice in many cement works.[25].
Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases. Ash which does not rise is termed bottom ash. In an industrial context, fly ash usually refers to ash produced during combustion of coal. Fly ash is generally captured by electrostatic precipitators or other particle filtration equipments before the flue gases reach the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, and together with bottom ash removed from the bottom of the furnace is in this case jointly known as coal ash. Depending upon the source and makeup of the coal being burned, the components of fly ash vary considerably, but all fly ash includes substantial amounts of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (both amorphous and crystalline) and calcium oxide (CaO), both being endemic ingredients in many coal-bearing rock strata.
In the past, fly ash was generally released into the atmosphere, but pollution control equipment mandated in recent decades now require that it be captured prior to release. In the US, fly ash is generally stored at coal power plants or placed in landfills. About 43 percent is recycled,[3] often used to supplement Portland cement in concrete production. Some have expressed health concerns about this.[4]
Ash used as a cement replacement must meet strict construction standards, ….. amounts of chromium(VI) contaminated leather sludges in Alcanena, Portugal. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash – Cached – Similar
Chromium VI Directive. The Chromium (VI) Directive (2003/53/EC) applies to cement and products containing cement marketed in the EU from 17th January 2005. … http://www.whd.co.uk/Concrete/cementandchromiu.html – Cached – Similar
By the time an employee becomes aware of a cement burn, much damage has …. Adding ferrous sulfate to portland cement may lower the Cr(VI) content of the … http://www.osha.gov/dsg/guidance/cement-guidance.html – Cached – Similar
43 Grade cement is used for pre-cast concrete production and sleeper manufacture … In Scandinavia, France and the UK, the level of chromium(VI), which is thought to be toxic and a major skin … Resourse :- http://en.wikipedia.org … cementindustry.blogspot.com/ – Cached – Similar
Ash used as a cement replacement must meet strict construction standards, but no standard …. This process was used to stabilize large amounts of chromium(VI) … Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; … http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/fly+ash – Cached
anagrams crosswords example wikipedia Ebay catalog translations … Many asphaltic concrete pavements contain fly ash. … a raw feed for manufacturing portland cement clinker, as well as for skid control on icy roads. … boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum,selenium, …
dictionary.sensagent.com/coal+combustion+products/en-en/ – Cached
Fly Ash Resource Center- splash page. Wikipedia Reference from Wikipedia… boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, ….. Promotes the use of fly ash as an additive in concrete and cement products. … http://www.kosmix.com/topic/fly_ash – Cached
Chromium VI Directive. The Chromium (VI) Directive (2003/53/EC) applies to cement and products containing cement marketed in the EU from 17th January 2005. … http://www.whd.co.uk/Concrete/cementandchromiu.html – Cached – Similar
**
and – Perchlorate – (look it up sometime)
Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Last Update: January 7, 2011
Perchlorate is a regulated drinking water contaminant in California, with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 6 micrograms per liter (µg/L). The MCL became effective October 2007. For information provided to public water systems by the CDPH Drinking Water Program about the implementation of the MCL and the scheduling of monitoring, see links at the bottom of this page.
Perchlorate and its salts are used in solid propellant for rockets, missiles, and fireworks, and elsewhere (e.g., production of matches, flares, pyrotechnics, ordnance, and explosives). Their use can lead to releases of perchlorate into the environment. Perchlorate’s interference with iodide uptake by the thyroid gland can decrease production of thyroid hormones, which are needed for prenatal and postnatal growth and development, as well as for normal metabolism and mental function in the adult. Its effects on the thyroid gland are the basis of the 6-µg/L public health goal (PHG) established in 2004 by Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (PHGs contribute to the development of MCLs, as described here.) In January 2011, OEHHA released a draft technical support document for a 1-µg/L PHG for perchlorate.
Monitoring, first in 1997 by the Drinking Water Program and then by public water systems, showed perchlorate to be a widespread drinking water contaminant, occurring in several hundred wells, mostly in southern California (see early findings). Perchlorate was also found in the Colorado River, an important source of water for drinking and irrigation, where its presence resulted from contamination from ammonium perchlorate manufacturing facilities in Nevada.
Final Regulatory Determination for Perchlorate in Drinking Water
EPA has decided to regulate perchlorate under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The science that has lead to this decision has been peer reviewed by independent scientists and public health experts including the National Academy of Sciences. This decision reverses a 2008 preliminary determination, and considers input from almost 39,000 public commenters on multiple public notices (May 2007, October 2008, and August 2009) related to perchlorate. This action notifies interested parties of EPA’s decision to regulate perchlorate, but does not in itself impose any requirements on public water systems (PWSs). However, this action initiates a process to develop and establish a national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR). Once the NPDWR is finalized, certain PWSs will be required to take action to comply with the regulation in accordance with the schedule specified in the regulation.
EPA is replacing the existing preliminary remediation goal of 24.5 ppb with the interim health advisory value of 15 ppb. This goal will be used as a consideration when establishing cleanup levels for perchlorate at Superfund sites.
Thaumasite is a silicate mineral with chemical formula Ca3Si(OH)6(CO3)(SO4)·12H2O. It occurs as colorless to white prismatic hexagonal crystals, typically as acicular radiating groups. It also occurs as fibrous masses. Its Mohs hardness is 3.5 and it has a specific gravity of 1.88 to 1.90. Optically it is uniaxial negative with indices of refraction of nω = 1.507 and nε = 1.468.
Thaumasite can also be formed along with other calcium-silicate hydrates (CSH) during cement alteration, especially when sulfate attack develops.
It was first described in 1878 in Sweden and named from the Greek, “thaumazein”, to be surprised, in reference to its unusual composition with carbonate, sulfate and hydroxysilicate anions.[3]
Another quite surprising feature of thaumasite is the presence of non-tetrahedral silicon in its crystal lattice.[4][5][citation needed] Indeed, an atypic octahedral configuration is observed for Si present in thaumasite in the form of hexahydroxysilicate: [Si(OH)6]2−, a species exhibiting a geometry similar to that of the hexafluorosilicate [SiF6]2−.
Isn’t that the best?
Thaumasite (white) with prehnite (green) from Fairfax Quarry, Virginia
***
Very interesting . . .
– cricketdiane
***
Here is more about the hydrofracking waste water discussions –
The contaminants still remaining, including radioactive materials, could find their way into drinking water and aquatic species that may be used for food. …
It’s important to note that the radiation levels in the drinking water are extremely low, on the order of parts per trillion. However, as KHOU reports, the tendency among environmental health experts and the EPA, is to regard any level as potentially dangerous to human health.
He said drinking water with any amount of alpha particles, even when consumed in amounts below federal legal limits, raises your risk to develop health problems or, in rare cases, cancer. Examples of alpha particles found in the Gulf Coast region are those from uranium, radium and other minerals.
Ozonoff describes alpha particles as a type of radiation that would not typically harm you unless inhaled or ingested. He warns, once you take it inside your body, your health risks immediately begin to rise.
“It can’t penetrate very far, but when it hits something it does a ferocious amount of damage,” he said. “If I were to drink it, then many parts of your body are within knife-wielding distance of an alpha particle.”
Part II aired last night and it reveals what appears to be scientific malpractice on the part of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality scientists. One expert in the KHOU story called it a “cover-up.”
For more than 20 years, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality under-reported the amount of radiation found in drinking water provided by communities all across Texas. As a result, health risks to people consuming the water have been underestimated in many water systems where radioactive contaminants are present.
Here’s what happened in a nutshell, according to KHOU: An independent lab would test the water for radioactive contaminants and submit the data, as is standard, with a margin of error built-in. Rather than report the full results to the EPA, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would always pick the lower end of the margin of error in an apparent attempt to keep water utilities from exceeding federal radiation limits.
And it gets worse. In 2000, the EPA explicitly told TCEQ to stop playing games with the margin of error. But for nine more years, TCEQ continued the practice, until a 2009 EPA audit finally put a stop to it. Is this what Rick Perry means when he talks about standing up to the feds?
We examine three of the film’s claims: Claim 1: Fracking is polluting underground sources of drinking water. The film highlights the risk but overstates it …
And here is more information that pertains to why this is critical to be fixed right now – (and has been known to need a solution for far too long to not be solved already) –
Certain rock types naturally contain radioactive elements referred to as NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials). When a source of drinking water comes in contact with NORM-bearing rocks, radionuclides may accumulate in the water to levels of concern. The predominant radionuclides found in water include:
As water is treated to remove impurities, radionuclides may collect and eventually build up in filters, tanks, and pipes at treatment plants. The small amounts of NORM present in the source water may concentrate in sediment or sludges. Because the NORM is concentrated due to human activity, it is classified as TENORM (Technologically Enhanced Radioactive Material). Most of this waste is disposed in landfills and lagoons, or is applied to agricultural fields.
On down the page, it says –
Land Spreading/Soil Conditioning
About 20 percent of sludge is disposed of by land application to improve soil conditions or to fertilize the soil. The sludge is plowed directly into the soil to limit water runoff and for sanitary reasons. Recently proposed rules may prohibit this practice on agriculture land.
Deep-Well Injection
Deep-well injection involves the pumping of sludge into a stable geologic formation. Deep-well injection is not commonly used and is specifically prohibited in the states of Wisconsin and Illinois. Because of its potential adverse impact on groundwater aquifers, EPA uses its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to control and also discourage this practice.
Landfills
Approximately 30 percent of generated sludge is disposed of in landfills. Contaminated materials are typically covered and compacted on a daily basis. Features such as clay layers are emplaced above and below the buried waste to prevent radon emissions and radionuclides from leaching into the groundwater.
Lagoons
Approximately 42 percent of sludge is disposed of in lagoons. Any radium present in the sludge will settle in bottom sediments which may have to be periodically dredged and properly disposed of.
Ion-Exchange and Activated Charcoal
Ion-exchange resins are used on smaller water supply systems to soften water by replacing Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions with Na+ ions. In the process, about 95 percent of the radium is also removed . However, the resins are usually back washed for reuse rather than being disposed. The backwash water, which contains radium, is typically discharged to storm sewers, underground injection wells or septic tanks, or is back washed to another ion-exchange column for the selective removal of radium. Radionuclide content eventually builds up in the resin after prolonged usage.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/drinking-water.html(it has a lot more information – But, my note is that the quantity of wastewater and its radioactive contents from the hydrofracking process in over 71,000 natural gas wells in Pennsylvania alone are massively greater quantities than any system could clean or decontaminate.)
***
Scientists want to help regulators decide safety of chemicals
Groups representing 40,000 researchers and clinicians are urging federal agencies responsible for the safety of chemicals to examine the subtle impact a chemical might have on the human body rather than simply ask whether it is toxic.
A well-known example would be bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastic goods for decades, Hunt said. The chemical can leach from products into food and drink, and federal health officials say it is found in the urine of more than 90 percent of Americans.
The government has long said that BPA is safe, based on studies that show levels of BPA used in commercial products are not toxic – meaning they would not kill – humans.
But a growing body of research by endocrinologists, molecular biologists, reproductive specialists and others over the past 15 years has shown that low levels of BPA can cause changes in activity at the cellular level that cause health effects over time in laboratory animals. (etc.)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 3, 2011; 3:57 PM
***
My Note –
In the 1960’s and 1970’s efforts were made to start fixing these things and for over 42 years they have not been fixed. Only a very small percentage of the persistent pollution has been tackled. In fact, with the amount of money that industries and businesses have spent on attorneys, public relations firms, lobbyists, lobbyists on top of lobbyists, US Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups to persuade the public through the media, fighting regulations in every single state and across the world, and fighting legislation and regulations in the Federal government, fighting the EPA, putting off making changes, changing their operations to other countries in some cases where they could continue polluting – and buying Republican Party candidates to serve their interests – they could’ve just put the damn filters on the smokestacks and rendered the wastewater into a neutralized safe contaminant free resource and made the same profits or even greater at the same time.
But no.
Oh yeah – and the amount of money they’ve spent on decrying scientific studies, hindering them, legislating against them, legislating against their findings, lobbying and applying political pressure against those findings, undermining the credibility of those findings, etc., ad nauseum – they could’ve afforded to have designed systems that would never have polluted in the first place. That is some ridiculous sums of money that have spent over the last forty years and certainly been spent across multiple industries, through a multitude of corporations and industry / trade associations, through business associations, and think tanks and public relations consultants, and political donations and on and on and on – they could’ve just solved the damn problems for less than a quarter of one tenth of one percent of what they’ve spent fighting against doing anything about it.
And, worst of all –
The families of these business leaders have been just as subjected to these pollutants as the rest of us whether they know it or not. And, some of those decision-makers who refused to be told what to do with their business and refused to stop doing their business in ways that polluted everybody and everything – are dead now as a direct result of the pollutants they unleashed on America. Why don’t they know that?
It is just stupid.
– cricketdiane
***
Do they really think that it can’t get them if they are rich enough to go skiing in the Alps and go vacation in the beautiful coasts of the world and live in their elegant protected homes? What planet is their food coming from? What air do they think they are breathing?
Oh wait, the Republicans up there in Washington that are gutting the budgets to the EPA and serving the business interests that paid for their campaigns don’t believe that mankind has had any negative effects on nature. And, they don’t believe that water with radioactive contaminants in it which were dumped upstream nearly on top of where the drinking water is taken could even remotely have anything to do with them or their families. Yeah – right. And if they don’t believe it will hurt anything then it won’t.
That’s what they’ve been doing for the entire course of my adult lifetime and now I can honestly say, that my childhood was subjected to it, my children’s lifetimes have been subjected to it and my grandchildren’s lives have been subjected to it. My cousins, grandparents and parents have been subjected to it and every single person that I have ever known. Some have died horribly from cancers although they never smoked a day in their lives. It wasn’t smoking that killed them nor caused the cancers they’ve endured. But, there is a very good chance that the horrendous chemicals consistently poured into the environment in every single state, every rural area, every suburb, every city and every water source for every moment of every day over the last fifty years and more – could very well have caused those cancers, nightmarish suffering and deaths prematurely.
NOAA has suffered budget cuts for the last eight years – according to CNN guest scientist.
Well, that isn’t good, now is it? Whose crappy idea was that? Let me guess.
Hmmmm……
Republicans were in charge of the country and most states and the Congress. Let me see, who would’ve done such a thing?
well …
I guess they didn’t like the fact that NOAA was doing a good job and showing science that they didn’t like. That sounds about right. So, the Republicans in charge used their typical strategy of cutting the funding to the agency. Yep, that’s probably about it.
And, now we need what NOAA can do because of a national crisis – and likely it will be an international crisis before its over – and their funding is still far less than it needed to be for eight years of budget cuts and the destruction to their lab facilities and educated professional teams of scientists is costing us – again.
Figures.
There was a note at 9.38 am this morning, 06-08-10, about Rich Steiner, Marine Biologist who read the disaster preparedness plan – disaster response plan the BP had submitted to the Minerals Management Service for this well. He said it was 583 pages and appeared to have been a “cut and paste” job more than anything else. It included protections for seals and walruses (in the Gulf of Mexico.) I don’t think those live in the Gulf of Mexico. However, he did read it and now I’m wondering where he found the durn thing – because I’ve been trying to find it for days without success. The one thing I did find is that most of those documents, for some reason are located in federal depository libraries onsite only where it must be viewed in person – and I found a list of which ones have the various disaster preparedness and response plans which I posted on an earlier post. (Mr. Steiner was on CNN earlier today).
I’ve been watching the news off and on today – mostly early this morning and noted a couple things including a point at which on one of the news shows – probably CNN but maybe FoxNews or Bloomberg or cnbc – where they offered a wonderful chart of the six companies whose responsibilities are tied into this situation with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. They had BP, of course – but also Andarko, Mitsui, TransOcean, Halliburton and Cameron. The chart showed how much their stock prices have plummeted since this event started. One of the news segments showed – maybe this one – that TransOcean has a court case before a judge right now using an 1851 Maritime Law to limit their liability to $26.7 million dollars total. The judge is deciding that now.
And, last night (06-07-10) there was a mention by David Cameron on Larry King Live about the ideas team put together with recommendations about what could be done to cap or contain the well – an important note that the pressure down under the seabed for this well is estimated to be 13,000 psi. Some of the scientists and engineers had already given estimates a couple weeks ago, that the oil being released was around 6,200 psi – (also probably from news shows.)
On AC360, I think it was – also last night (06-07-10) there was a mention that the 1990 Oil Act makes the oil company the first authority and gives rights over all in the event of an oil spill or oil disaster to the oil company over all government, government agencies, local and federal and state rights of say or authority.
If I understand it correctly, it is the reason that the oil company and their marine spill response corporation has the full authority and first rights of say about anything and everything throughout the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf Coast of the United States – including demanding that the FAA ground all flights with media on board so they can’t take aerial photos of the oil spill. It is also the reason that BP could hire a security company to keep the reporters, photographers and state leaders and agencies out of the marshes in Louisiana after the thick crude oil was found there.
It is also the reason that every state, county, town, city, coastal area, and marine group must go through BP and their contractor to do anything to prevent the oil from coming onshore or to place any other method of solving the problem or save a bird or rescue a dolphin or sea turtle, place a sand berm along their own waters – even the ones being placed in Destin, Florida.
It is also the reason that over the thousands of products that are known to work to get up the oil, contain the oil or suck up the oil, only those that were originally on the list of the BP contractor are being used and only their list of subcontractors / companies pre-assigned by them are being used in the cleanup and skimming and whatever else.
Very interesting. How many times has this cost us immensely just as it is now? And, whose insistence placed this into the law? Hmmm….. Let me guess.
– cricketdiane
***
I noticed over the last few days, that CNN shows at different times during the day have been showing segments which allow inventors and companies with solutions to show those solutions on air and demonstrate their products. Each one, when asked if they have shown or told BP of these things, has said they have and received only a generic form response or no response at all, even when they’ve called to try and set up a time to make a presentation to them. I think some have presentations they are trying to make this week, but I don’t know that it is to BP. One of the company owners said that he tried to call the EPA at each of the states to show it to them and got nowhere with absolutely no opportunities for his company’s products to be included in those under consideration. So what’s the deal?
There is a place on CNN to enter videos of solutions under the iReport side of their site under the word “fixit” and there somewhere, they have the links for the numerous government and EPA and BP places to submit solutions. Apparently over 40,000 solutions have been sent to the BP site already and 278 or something are being considered for further review.
On cnbc or bloomberg or foxnews earlier today – now see, I should’ve written it down – but there was a man who wrote in the NY Times about BP maybe needing to prepare for a worst case scenario and how they can declare bankruptcy / form a merger and put a ring around liabilities to prevent the total costs from undermining shareholders’ value and company assets. It was something like that – but in the process of him discussing the article he had written, the man described the method that is being considered by bankers and others to isolate and diminish the financial liabilities BP has from the spill. It looks like preparations are being made to do that, as BP Hayward had told shareholder’s meeting on last Friday am or Thursday, that BP was making a company within their company to handle the oil spill and all of their liabilities about it. Then, this week – it looks like they’ve made it into another division in their company with one of the BP executives heading it – Bob Dudley maybe or Doug Suttles. Anyway, there is the possibility that the plan is to contain the liabilities in such a way that any outstanding civil suits in the future would not be viable. In bankruptcy – Chapter 11, the bond holders, creditors and shareholders would be given protection and consideration but future liabilities from the oil spill probably would not.
By the way – that man whose article appeared in the NY Times or wherever this morning – he mentioned in the interview on the news that the current estimations of the costs expected to BP – and I don’t know how they’ve derived this number – but that those costs to BP are expected to be $40 Billion dollars, as of this point. (that’s billion with a B).
There was also a mention on the news yesterday that many of the judges have accepted money from the oil industry such that they would have an innate conflict of interest for any cases resulting from this oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – throughout all of the states on the Gulf Coast and the federal justices as well.
– cricketdiane
***
The other thing I noted today – well, two other things –
One, is that the laws BP lawyers and attorney teams are using – do not supercede the US Constitution and other US Codes about the rights and authorities of our government and its agencies. They are picking and choosing which laws to bring out to support BP’s and the Marine Spill Response Corporation’s rights and authority to manipulate, control, qualify, maneuver, decide, and to require all to come through them to do anything.
However, the oil act of 1990 does not supercede other laws and the rights, authorities, responsibilities and ultimate authority given to the federal government, federal and state agencies, as well as state, county and local elected officials and representatives. So, the oil company lawyers are simply using those laws that serve their purposes but leaving out all those other laws that don’t suit their position – and we are supposed to know better, but no one is challenging them about it.
Two, is that the chart provided on the CNN clip – or whatever station that I was watching at the time earlier today, that showed 6 companies who are ultimately liable in this event is wrong. The final tally of those whose liability is connected to this event extends to those whose decisions made it worse and abrogated that authority of the US government, US government agencies, state agencies and local elected officials along the coast. These directly include the Marine Spill Response Corporation and the Marine Preservation Association (whose membership is solely oil industry interests) which backs it along with the subcontractors they have chosen.
When I was watching a bit of the coverage from Florida, whose pleas to get some skimmers, booms and other equipment out to them fell on deaf ears over at the BP group and the Marine Spill Response Corporation as the contractor required by all to go through for anything – the idea was presented that there are only so many resources to go around and those must be shared by all the states and communities along the Gulf Coast as well as the entire region of ocean that makes up the Gulf of Mexico. All of these resources are being managed and assigned by this contractor exclusively. Therefore, they are ultimately and directly responsible for failures which have incentivised failure to meet the needs and critical timeliness of the response across the broad areas of this crisis. They have also been responsible directly for mismanagement of resources, misplacement of resources, misdirection of resources and mistakes of coordination which yielded a radically worse oil spill pervading every section of the disaster.
These contractors and subcontractors are directly responsible for making the disaster worse and more pervasive, especially along the shoreline coasts and marshes – along with having insisted on using a toxic chemical dispersant that was known to be dangerous to marine wildlife, birds, fishes, marine mammals, coral reefs, aquatic food chains and people. They are the ones who are also responsible for using the subcontractors as they have. And, they are the ones responsible for having the few resources at hand along with the plan for their placement and use which has been in no way prepared properly or in appropriate numbers for any spill of any appreciable size, including this one.
So, these companies are on the list along with those six listed on the news as parties liable for the disaster that has occurred.
It is also possible that those organizations whose lobbying and insistence created the legal framework which allowed the oil industry to play by their own rules and takeover the rights to the entire Gulf of Mexico, the entire Gulf Coast and every state, local and federal authority – could also be liable.
– cricketdiane
***
The other thing that I was working on – was from last week – when there was a comment from someone over at the US Chamber of Commerce who challenged me to place the sources where I found some information about their lobbying efforts over the years which have yielded results that I don’t find to be in the interests of the human race whatsoever. And, as funny as it isn’t – I said that I’d be glad to look in my notes to find those and post them.
My ability to put a name on a file leaves a lot to be desired, so – I went online and back into my files to find the information. It yielded not a thing I was looking to find – but it did yield a bunch of very nifty stuff – including this –
– cricketdiane
***
Non-Governmental Organizations which have been
granted Consultative Status with IMO – International Maritime Organization –
Name and address
Telephone/facsimile/
e-mail/Web
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS)
11 Dartmouth Street
London SW1H 9BN
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)207 799 3033
Fax: +44(0)207 799 2933
Email: info@acops.org
Web: www.acops.org BIMCO
Bagsvaerdvej 161
DK-2880 Bagsvaerd
Denmark
Tel: +45 44 36 6800
Fax: +45 44 36 6868
Email: mailbox@bimco.dk
Web: www.bimco.org European Federation of Insurance Intermediaries (BIPAR)
c/o London and International Insurance Brokers’ Association
2nd floor
78 Leadenhall Street
London EC3A 3DH
United Kingdom
Head office:
Avenue Albert-Elizabeth 40
B-1200 Brussels
Belgium
Community of European Shipyards’ Associations (CESA)
Rue Marie de Bourgogne 52-54, 3rd floor
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 2 230 2791
Fax: +32 2 230 4332
Email:info@cesa.eu
Website: www.cesa.eu
Comité International Radio-Maritime (CIRM)
Southbank House
Black Prince Road
London SE1 7SJ
United Kingdom
Global Maritime Education & Training Association (GlobalMET)
GlobalMET Executive Secretary
AustralAsian Maritime Education Services Ltd.
P O Box 307
Waikanae 5250
Kapiti Coast
New Zealand
The ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) is a specialised division of the International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC). The IMB is a non-profit making … www.icc-ccs.org/
ICHCA International Limited (ICHCA)
Suite 2, 85 Western Road
Romford
Essex RM1 3LS
United Kingdom
International Maritime Rescue Federation (IMRF)
(formerly International Lifeboat Federation (ILF)) c/o Royal National Lifeboat Institution
West Quay Road
Poole, Dorset BH15 1HZ
United Kingdom
PIANC, the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure
(PIANC)
Général Secretariat
Graaf de Ferraris – 11eme etage – boite 3
Boulevard du Roi Albert II No. 20
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
PIANC UK Committee:
HR Wallingford
Howberry Park
Wallingford
Oxon OX10 8BA
About IMO
IMO Bravery Award
World Maritime Day
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Site Index
General objectives and policies
Strategic Plan and High Level Action Plan
Structure
Conference (Meetings and Documents)
Conventions
IMO 60 years
Membership
NGOs and IGOs
IMO Training Institutes
Secretary-General
International Maritime Prize
Seafarers’ Memorial
Working at IMO
Procurement
Internships
Fellowships
Just for Kids
IMO: What it is, what it does and how it works
L’OMI: ce qu’elle est, ce qu’elle fait…
OMI: qué es, qué hace, cómo funciona
What is IMO? Poster (PDF)
What is IMO? (Powerpoint)
google search –
1993 US ICC Chamber of Commerce position policy
#
U.S. Immigration Policy – Council on Foreign Relations
Before 1981, Bush served in various positions at Texas Commerce Bank in …. In addition, he serves as a senior international fellow at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. …. and in 1993 joined the Criminal Division as chief of staff to the … This report offers a backdrop of the U.S.-ICC relationship and policy … http://www.cfr.org › by publication type › task force reports – Cached – Similar
#
***
Oiling the wheels of corporate domination – International Chamber …
Of Swiss nationality and Greek origin, she was educated in the US (Harvard), … culminating symbolically with the closure in 1993 of the UN Centre on … At this point Cattaui moved to the ICC, the world’s largest corporate lobby group. … Any policy discussion – especially on the environment – that might lead in … http://www.newint.org/columns/…/2004/08/…/maria-livanos-cattaui/ – Cached – Similar
Home » Columns » Worldbeaters
August 2004 • Issue 370
Maria Livanos Cattaui
Name:
Maria Livanos Cattaui
Job:
Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
Reputation:
The public face of corporate globalization.
Sense of humour:
Rarely evident in public: ‘Most people in this world would love to have somebody else telling them how things are going to go… We feel we’re out there alone with our pants down and the cold wind blowing.’
Low cunning:
Cattaui is on the Board of the International Youth Foundation. She claims it ‘helped to start the global alliance for workers and communities, which investigated Nike’s often twice-removed suppliers in the footwear market. And it was Nike who gave us the money to do it. Those studies congratulated Nike on what it had done in response to public concern, but pointed out areas and policies still requiring change and said there were further actions needed. I applaud companies that can open their books and stand ready to be exposed to public scrutiny.’
Sources:
Belén Balanyá, Anne Doherty, Olivier Hoedeman, Adam Ma’anit and Erik Wesselius, Europe Inc, Pluto Press and Corporate Europe Observatory, London, 2000; The Straits Times, 17 November 2003; http://news.bbc.co.uk 2 December 2003; http://www.opendemocracy.net 2 August 2001 and 25 October 2001; http://www.corporateeurope.org; http://www.iccwbo.org
‘The events of 11 September are likely to have a short- to medium-term effect on the costs for business,’ said Maria Livanos Cattaui just a few weeks after the events in 2001. She was responding to a question about how they might impact on her concept of ‘globalization’. ‘Higher insurance costs, delays at customs, heightened security measures and concern among companies about risks they can take in furthering their activities in many developing countries.’
Maria Livanos Cattaui, Secretary General of the ICC since 1996, could never be accused of lacking focus. She is a passionate and efficient believer in the virtues of business. These she extols on any conceivable topic, from the salvation of Africa to the wonders of a security system that tracks individual shipping containers. She recommends cost-benefit analysis as the best approach to the ‘war on terror’.
Two things distinguish her from run-of-the-mill business propagandists. The first is that she is a woman. The second is that she has never worked in business. Of Swiss nationality and Greek origin, she was educated in the US (Harvard), then went on to editorial supervision at Encyclopaedia Britannica and Time-Life Books. In 1977 she joined the World Economic Forum in Geneva, where she worked her way up to become Managing Director. Her special area of responsibility was for the notorious annual meeting of the Forum in the upscale Davos ski resort.
Lest we forget, this was the heyday of the Masters of the Universe. The mood was captured well enough in the film Wall Street or the novel Bonfire of the Vanities. It was as if divine revelation had spawned a new cult, its high priests gathering every year in the snows of Davos to be attended upon by nodding intellectuals, governments, anyone with any ambitions at all in the power-broking, money-making game. Manifest destiny lay in corporate globalization, culminating symbolically with the closure in 1993 of the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, which still had mild regulatory ambitions. All the while, there was Maria Livanos Cattaui servicing the ritual.
So complete was the triumph of corporate power over democratic control that it became a new orthodoxy – which, like all orthodoxies, then had to be protected from itself. At this point Cattaui moved to the ICC, the world’s largest corporate lobby group. While a plethora of powerful business ‘dialogues’ had flourished alongside the Forum, the ICC remained relatively comatose, scarcely organizing a single international gathering.
Cattaui changed all that. Grand ‘global’ shindigs and specialist hit squads were launched by the ICC. Renewed regulation of any sort had to be slaughtered at birth. Any policy discussion – especially on the environment – that might lead in that direction would be headed off at the pass. The innate virtues of business made voluntary self-regulation more than sufficient. Corporate influence over such institutions as the World Trade Organization and the UN itself needed to be institutionalized. In July 2000, no more than seven years after the closure of the Centre on Transnational Corporations, the UN duly signed a ‘Global Compact’ with private corporations. Most observers credited Cattaui with a remarkable coup.
Make no mistake, she is a smooth and supple operator. She no longer claims to favour ‘free’ trade. She prefers ‘rules-based’ trade – given, of course, that the rules are made by business. For her, business is part of ‘civil society’, perfectly entitled to wield influence in the same way as, say, the Church – although it’s a civil society that excludes troublemakers, particularly anyone who ‘trashes cars’.
She scorns the idea that corporations have become more powerful than governments. ‘Oh, that’s crazy!’ she protests. ‘Who can raise taxes? Who can spend [them]? Who can set up a judiciary? Who can incarcerate? Who can raise an army? There’s no company in the whole world that does that! This is the job of government! And they do it, more than they ever have before.’
So that’s all right, then. Cattaui knows exactly what governments are for – to keep everyone in good order for business. Meanwhile, there’s an expanding area of corporate territory that self-styled democratic governments, as if by telepathy, no longer dare or desire to enter. In truth, there’s nothing telepathic about it. Maria Livanos Cattaui sees to that.
Corporate Europe Observer
The CEO Quarterly Newsletter
Issue 1, May 1998
United Nations Under Siege
Corporate Takeover of the United Nations Continues…
In the last issue of Corporate Europe Observer, we reported on a June 1997 luncheon in UN headquarters with corporate executives and global political leaders, including UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Discussion topics included business participation in the UN decision-making process and a UN-business partnership in development policies. That this event was not an isolated case becomes clear in the following two articles: one describing the increasingly successful attempts of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to gain privileged access to the UN; and the other detailing a particularly inappropriate case of corporate sponsorship — Nestlé’s recent hosting and sponsoring of a UN workshop on women and sustainable development.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) — the self- proclaimed “world business organization” — wants privileged access to the United Nations and other international organizations. During last year’s presidency of Nestlé’s Helmut Maucher, the ICC’s ambitions seemed to materialize and take flight.
UN-Business Partnership
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), contrary to what its name might suggest, is primarily an organization representing the largest transnational corporations on earth, including corporate giants like General Motors, Novartis, Bayer and Nestlé. The ICC, which for many years has pushed for global economic deregulation within the World Trade Organization, the G-7 and the OECD, now has its sights set on the United Nations.
“The way the United Nations regards international business has changed fundamentally. This shift towards a stance more favourable to business is being nurtured from the very top,” ICC Secretary General Maria Livanos Cattaui concluded with satisfaction in a column in the International Herald Tribune in February. Cattaui quotes UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in saying that the time is ripe for consultation between the UN and business.[1]
Cattaui’s optimism was confirmed the same week in a February 9th meeting of 25 ICC business leaders with a heavyweight UN delegation headed by Kofi Annan, heralded as the first step in “a systematic dialogue.” The ICC delegation included captains of industry from Coca Cola, Unilever, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs and Rio Tinto Zinc. In a joint statement, the ICC and the UN Secretary General stated that “broad political and economic changes have opened up new opportunities for dialogue and cooperation between the United Nations and the private sector”. The two sides committed themselves to “forge a close global partnership to secure greater business input into the world’s economic decision-making and boost the private sector in the least developed countries.” The industry representatives used the occasion to argue for “establishing an effective regulatory framework for globalization, including investment, capital markets, competition, intellectual property rights and trade facilitation.”[2] The ICC has worked with UN institutions before, but not on the highest level and not on the potentially very wide range of political matters around which ‘partnership’ now seems to have emerged.[3]
ICC and UNCTAD Hand-in-Hand
One of the concrete projects agreed upon at the February consultation between the UN and ICC is a joint series of business investment guides to the least developed countries, to be produced by the UN Centre for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the ICC. The aim of these guides is to increase foreign direct investment flows into the 48 countries which the UN considers ‘least developed’, 38 of which are African. The guides “are to contain accurate, objective, investor-oriented and comparative information on investment opportunities and conditions in the countries covered.”
Another example of the new fruitful cooperation arose in March, when the ICC and UNCTAD presented the results of a joint “worldwide survey of leading multinational companies” which showed that corporations had not lost interest in investing in East and Southeast Asia. ICC Secretary-General Cattaui concluded from the survey of 198 TNCs that “business still sees enormous investment opportunities to be derived from the projected growth of Asian markets in the 21st century.”[4] The survey shows that 34% of European firms, and 19% of US and Japan-based TNCs plan to increase their activities in Asia. A senior UNCTAD investment expert explained that: “In the short and medium term, the lower costs for multinationals in the most affected countries create immediate incentives for additional direct investment.”[5] UNCTAD Secretary-General Rubens Ricupero said that the interest expressed by TNCs “augurs well for recovery in the region.”[6]
Geneva Business Dialogue
The most ambitious event this year in the ICC’s strategy for forging closer links with UN and other international institutions is the Geneva Business Dialogue, a conference slated to take place on September 23-24 1998. “The Geneva Business Dialogue,” a press release explains, “is the ICC’s initiative to create a successful mechanism to deal with the effects, promises and progress of globalization.” Participants at this conference, which organizers plan to hold annually, will be from “the ICC and the many important international organizations based in Geneva.” [7]
ICC president Maucher amplifies: “During two days of intensive meetings in September, we shall bring together the heads of international companies and the leaders of international organizations so that business experiences and expertise is channelled into the decision-making process for the global economy.”[8] The programme — details are yet to be released will deal with “some of the significant and contentious issues raised by an increasingly integrated international economy.” [9]
The ICC boasts that the initiative “is welcomed at the highest level of the World Trade Organization, the United Nations system and other international bodies”, and the preliminary participants list confirms that the Geneva Business Dialogue will bring together influential players including EU Commissioner Yves-Thibault de Silguy, WTO Director-General Renato de Ruggiero, high-level officials from the World Bank and the Industrial Standards Organization (ISO), as well as presidents, prime ministers and other top ministers from the US, Finland, Hungary, Thailand and Switzerland. Among the many high-level UN representatives are UNCTAD Secretary-General Rubens Ricupero and UN Under-Secretary General Vladimir Petrovsky. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will address the dialogue through a satellite connection. In addition to Helmut Maucher himself, business will be represented by CEOs from Unilever, ICI, Mitsubishi, Goldman Sachs, Lyonnaise des Eaux, Norsk Hydro, Siemens, BASF, Shell and many other global corporations.
Maucher’s Ambitions
The new “partnership” between the ICC and the UN is the result of the former’s ambitious strategy pursued since Helmut Maucher took the helm in early 1997. Maucher, who recently left his job as CEO of Nestlé but remains on the board of directors, felt that the ICC had hitherto been neither sufficiently influential nor visible in the media.[10] Maucher has observed the efficient work of environmental and human rights NGOs within the UN system with great concern. In one of his first interviews as ICC president, Maucher warned: “We have to be careful that they do not get too much influence.” [11]
Within both the WTO and the UN, the ICC is pushing for the implementation of “a framework of global rules” which it plans to help draft, “as the only organization qualified to speak for every business sector in all parts of the world. Governments have to understand,” Maucher argues, “that business is not just another pressure group but a resource that will help them set the right rules.”[12] The joint statement between the UN Secretary- General and the ICC clarifies the ICC’s reasons for wanting to be involved in global decision making: “Business has a strong interest in multilateral cooperation, including standard-setting through the United Nations and other intergovernmental institutions and international conventions on the environment and other global and transborder issues.”
When Maucher became vice president of the ICC in 1995, he immediately dove into a reorganization process. He brought in a new Secretary-General, Maria Livanos Cattaui, who for many years had organized the World Economic Forum in Davos and like Maucher has a wide ranging network of international contacts.
Maucher himself divides his time as ICC president with his leadership of the European Roundtable of Industrialists. (ERT; for background information see “Europe, Inc.”, CEO, 1997)
Maucher’s ambitions for the ICC also include formal status within the World Trade Organization (WTO): “We want neither to be the secret girlfriend of the WTO,” Maucher said in an interview, “nor should the ICC have to enter the World Trade Organization through the servants entrance.”[13]
To pursue this more intimate relationship with the WTO, Maucher has made former GATT general director Arthur Dunkel chairman of the ICC’s commission on trade. Dunkel is also a board member of Nestlé.
Shared Vision?
The ICC, with its strategic cooptation of the message spread by NGOs and people’s movements, is attempting to use the growing consensus that global deregulation is creating serious social and environmental problems to its advantage. As Maria Livanos Cattaui described the ICC’s new cooperation with the UN, “the dialogue is coming not a moment too soon. Globalization has the potential to bring immense benefits to the human race. But as recent events in East Asia have demonstrated, it can swiftly magnify local crises into problems affecting the entire world economy. Hence the need for a framework of rules on investment, capital markets, competition policy and a host of other areas.”
The ICC’s agenda of deregulated markets — in the interest of hardly anyone besides the large transnational corporations united in the ICC — is presented an idealistic strategy to benefit all people. Cattaui disturbingly claims to have UN support for the ICC’s vision: “What makes the dialogue possible is the perception by both sides that open markets are a precondition for spreading more widely the benefits of globalization, for integrating developing countries into the world economy, and for improving living standards of all the world’s peoples, and in particular the poor.”
The joint UN-ICC statement seems to confirm a wide-ranging consensus, as it emphasizes the importance of “the effective functioning of the global market place and on the existence of open, equitable, inclusive economic systems, based on the free flow of trade, investment for economic growth and development and the avoidance of protectionist pressures.”
The UN seems to have largely given up worrying about the growing economic dominance of transnational corporations worldwide. Until 1993, the UN still had its Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) which carried out research and served the Commission on Transnational Corporations, an intergovernmental body with the mandate of developing a Code of Conduct for TNCs. Corporations were extremely hostile to the UNCTC, which also developed environmental guidelines for TNCs and promoted restricting foreign investment in the South Africa under the apartheid regime. In 1993 the UNCTC was dismantled as part of a ‘reorganization’, and UNCTAD became the new UN focal point for work on TNCs. UNCTAD, however, does not address the regulation of TNC activities, but rather works closely with them in order to stimulate foreign investment flows to the Third World. Work on the Code of Conduct on TNCs has stopped entirely.
With this “systematic dialogue” with the UN, the ICC has made a disturbing leap forward in its desire to become the legitimate global representative of “business”. However, the ICC does by no means represent all businesses, but principally only the largest transnational corporations. The interests of these footloose global players differ significantly from those businesses which are grounded in and oriented towards a local market. But there are other fundamental questions besides whether or not the ICC is really “the world business organization”. Is it appropriate for corporations — which are supposed to compete, adapt and diversify — to organize themselves in what effectively equals a global political monopoly? And concerning the ICC’s ambitions for “global regulation”: should corporations not simply be following the rules — local, national or global – shaped by democratically elected governments assisted by citizens organisations?
Notes
1. Maria Livanos Cattaui: “UN-Business Partnership Forged on Global Economy”, February 6 in International Herald Tribune.
2. “UN-Business Partnership to Boost Economic Development”, ICC statement 9 February 1998.
3. For instance the ICC signed an agreement with the United Nations Development Programme in September 1992 “under which UNDP provides financial and practical support for ICC efforts to strengthen the private sector and chambers of commerce in developing countries and in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union”, ICC website. The International Bureau of Chambers of Commerce (IBCC), which is a part of the ICC, is playing a leading role in implementing the agreement.
4. ICC and UNCTAD Press Release: “Leading Multinationals Vote their Confidence in Asia”, 18 March 1998.
5. Ibid.
6. ibid.
7. Helmut Maucher: “Ruling by Consent”, guest column in the Financial Times, 6 December 1997, FT Exporter, p. 2.
8. “Die Globalisierung Verlangt eine Kraftigere Stimme der Wirtschaft”, Frankfurter Algemeine 12 February 1997, p. 13.
9. Ibid.
10. Helmut Maucher: “Ruling by Consent”, guest column in the Financial Times, 6 December 1997, FT Exporter, p. 2.
11. Ibid.
12. ibid.
13. “Die Globalisierung Verlangt eine Kraftigere Stimme der Wirtschaft”, Frankfurter Algemeine 12 February 1997, p.13.
(from)
Corporate Europe Observatory
Paulus Potterstraat 20 1071 DA Amsterdam Netherlands tel/fax: +31-20-612-7023
Bringing together the
oil and gas industry on global,
environmental and social issues
Latest News
Managing biodiversity impacts: 10 tips for success in the oil and gas industry IPIECA keeps you informed about the Gulf of Mexico response
New publication: Chain of custody options for sustainable biofuels
New Portuguese translation: A guide to malaria management programmes in the oil and gas industry
Recent Global climate policy developments workshop
New climate change publication: Oil and Natural Gas Industry Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Projects: Flare Reduction Project Family
CoP15 side session: Climate change and energy to 2020
Update to Human Rights Training Toolkit for the Oil and Gas Industry
New climate change publication: Addressing Uncertainty in Oil and Natural Gas Industry Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Indirect Land-Use Change workshop, 9-10 November 2009
Impact Assessment, Biodiversity and the Extractive Industries Workshop report
New health publication: Drilling Fluids and Health Risk Management
IPIECA Stakeholder Dialogue
***
About OFPIC
The Operational, Fuels & Product issues Committee (OFPIC) replaced the Fuels & Transportation Working Group at the end of 2006.
OFPIC provides a networking forum for senior downstream HSE managers to coordinate industry response on operational HSE issues throughout the downstream supply chain. In practical terms, this means working on diverse issues such as utilization of biofuels, marine air emissions, the use of fuel additives, product HSE management and stewardship, and other operational/fuel supply chain HSE issues that may be identified by SIAF or the wider membership
OFPIC News
New publication: Chain of custody options for sustainable biofuels
GHS guidance submitted to UNSCEGHS
Indirect Land-Use Change Workshop: 9–10 November 2009, Lausanne, Switzerland – Presentations now available!
New publication: “Biofuels, sustainability and the petroleum industry”
2006-2008 Vice-Chairman Robert Recker, Vice President, Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry
2004-2005
Chairman Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Vice-Chairmen Nancy Hughes Anthony, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Peter Mihok, Slovak Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Slovakia)
Park Yong-Sung, Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Rona Yircali, Balikesir Chamber of Industry (Turkey)
2002-2003
Chairman Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Vice-Chairmen Nancy Hughes Anthony, Canadian Chamber of Commerce Usamah M. Al Kurdi, Council of Saudi Chambers (Saudi Arabia)
Peter Mikoh, Slovak Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Slovakia)
Park Yong-Sung, Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry
2001
Chairman Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Vice-Chairmen Nancy Hughes Anthony, Canadian Chamber of Commerce Usamah M. Al Kurdi, Council of Saudi Chambers (Saudi Arabia)
Peter Mikoh, Slovak Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Slovakia)
International Bureau of Chambers of Commerce (BICC)
1999-2000
Chairman Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Helmut Klomfar, Vienna Economic Chamber (Austria)
1998
Chairman Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
Helmut Klomfar, Vienna Economic Chamber (Austria)
1997
Chairman Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
Helmut Klomfar, Vienna Economic Chamber (Austria)
1994-1996
Chairman Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon);
President, General Union of Arab Chambers of Commerce & Industry
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
1993
Chairman Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon);
President, General Union of Arab Chambers of Commerce & Industry
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Avijit Mazumdar, Assocham India
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
Keizo Saji, Japan Chamber of Commerce
1992
Chairman Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon);
President, General Union of Arab Chambers of Commerce & Industry
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
Keizo Saji, Japan Chamber of Commerce
1991
Chairman Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon); President, General Union of Arab Chambers of Commerce & Industry
Vice-Chairmen A.A Baramuli, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
Keizo Saji, Japan Chamber of Commerce
Hari Shankar Singhania, Assocham India
1989-1990
Chairman Hans Messer, Frankfurt Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
Vice-Chairmen Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Pierre Tchanqué, Cameroon Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Mines
Keizo Saji, Japan Chamber of Commerce
Hari Shankar Singhania, Assocham India
1987-1988
Chairman Hans Messer, Frankfurt Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
Vice-Chairmen Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Pierre Netter, Assembly of French Chambers of Commerce (France)
Keizo Saji, Japan Chamber of Commerce
Hari Shankar Singhania, Assocham India
1985-1986
Chairman Rudolf Schlenker, Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
Vice-Chairmen Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Pierre Netter, Assembly of French Chambers of Commerce (France)
Susumu Furukawa, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
Hari Shankar Singhania, Assocham India
1984
Chairman Rudolf Schlenker, Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
Vice-Chairmen Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Pierre Netter, Assembly of French Chambers of Commerce (France)
Isamu Saheki, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
Hari Shankar Singhania, Assocham India
1980
Chairman Rudolf Schlenker, Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
Vice Chairmen Raul de Goes, Confederation of Chambers of Commerce of Brazil Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Egil S Roed, Oslo Chamber of Commerce (Norway)
Isamu Saheki, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1978
Chairman Phillip Schoeller, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Vice-Chairmen Raul de Goes, Confederation of Chambers of Commerce of Brazil
I. Habibullah, Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce (Pakistan) Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Egil S. Roed, Oslo Chamber of Commerce (Norway)
Isamu Saheki, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1977
Chairman Phillip Schoeller, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Vice-Chairmen Raul de Goes, Confederation of Chambers of Commerce of Brazil
I. Habibullah, Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce (Pakistan) Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Egil S. Roed, Oslo Chamber of Commerce (Norway)
Isamu Saheki, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1974
Chairman Phillip Schoeller, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Vice-Chairmen Arch N. Booth, US Chamber of Commerce (USA)
Raul de Goes, Confederation of Chambers of Commerce of Brazil
I. Habibullah, Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce (Pakistan) Adnan Kassar, Beirut Chamber of Commerce (Lebanon)
Massimo Risso, Chamber of Commerce of Genova (Italy)
Egil S. Roed, Oslo Chamber of Commerce (Norway)
Isamu Saheki, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1972
Chairman Phillip Schoeller, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Vice-Chairmen Arch N. Booth, US Chamber of Commerce (USA)
W.H. Fockema Andrea, Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce (Netherlands)
Massimo Risso, Chamber of Commerce of Genova (Italy)
I. Habibullah, Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce (Pakistan)
Isamu Saheki, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1969-1971
Chairman B. Thorburn, Goteburg Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Sweden)
Vice-Chairmen Arch N Booth, US Chamber of Commerce (USA)
Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
I. Habibullah, Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce (Pakistan)
Shinobu Ichikawa, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
Massimo Risso, Chamber of Commerce of Genova (Italy)
1968
Chairman Hans Rudolf Von Schröder, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Vice-Chairmen Arch. N.Booth, US Chamber of Commerce (USA)
Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Shinobu Ichikawa, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
Massimo Risso, Chamber of Commerce of Genova (Italy)
1966
Chairman F.H. Tate, London Chamber of Commerce & Industry (UK)
Vice-Chairmen Arch N Booth, US Chamber of Commerce (USA)
Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
D.L. Morrell, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
D. Odawara, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
Eugenio Radice Fossati, Union of Italian Chambers of Commerce
Rudolf Von Schröder, Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
International Information Bureau of Chambers of Commerce (BIICC)
1964
Chairman F.H. Tate, London Chamber of Commerce & Industry (UK)
Vice-Chairmen Arch N Booth, US Chamber of Commerce (USA)
Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
D.L. Morrell, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
D. Odawara, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
Eugenio Radice Fossati, Union of Italian Chambers of Commerce
Rudolf Von Schröder, Hamburg Chamber of Commerce (Germany)
1962
Chairman J.F. Sarasin, Basel Chamber of Commerce (Switzerland)
Vice-Chairmen Arch N. Booth, US Chamber of Commerce
Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
D.L. Morrell, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
D. Odawara, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan) F.H. Tate, London Chamber of Commerce & Industry (UK)
1960
Chairman B.F. Enschedé, Haarlem Chamber of Commerce (Netherlands)
Vice-Chairmen Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Gerhard Frentzel, Association of German Chambers of Ind. & Commerce
D.L. Morrell, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Michisuke Sugi, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1959
Chairman Carlos Mantero, Lisbon Chamber of Commerce (Portugal)
Vice-Chairmen Paul Förster, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Gerhard Frentzel, Association of German Chambers of Ind. & Commerce
D.L. Morrell, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Michisuke Sugi, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
1956
President Carlos Mantero, Lisbon Chamber of Commerce (Portugal)
Past Presidents Stefano Brun, Naples Chamber of Commerce (Italy)
Jacques Fougerolle, French German Chamber of Commerce
Vice-Presidents Sir Eric Carpenter, Manchester Chamber of Commerce & Industry (UK)
Guillermo Kraft, Chamber of Commerce of Argentina
D.L. Morell, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Michisuke Sugi, Osaka Chamber of Commerce (Japan)
FoundingChairman Stefano Brun, Napels Chamber of Commerce (Italy)
This information has been sourced from the ICC Handbook published as per the years noted above.
Robert Recker serves as the Executive Vice President of the Orlando Regional Chamber, the largest local chamber of commerce in Florida. In his current capacity, Mr. Recker leads the strategic decisions for the organization’s development in the areas of Membership, Community Leadership, Public Policy, Non-Dues Income, Community Relations, International Relations, Communications, and Administration.
Mr. Recker has created innovative sales and marketing strategies that have increased membership sales and retention for five consecutive years. He is credited with developing the Chamber’s membership portfolio of benefits, programs and activities which are marketed to three distinct brands; the Small Business Chamber, Chamber Trustees, and the Regional Board of Advisors. In addition, he has negotiated joint membership alliances with the Asian-American, African-American, and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Orlando/Orange County Convention and Visitors, and the Florida Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Recker also leads the Chamber’s international relations activities for the organization through his involvement with the World Chamber Congress, World Trade Center Orlando, and the Metro Orlando International Affairs Commission.
Mr Recker is the Chairman of the Chamber Leadership Cabinet for the United States Council for International Business. The Leadership Cabinet, comprised of select chamber of commerce executives from across America, will serve as advisors and advocates for the USCIB within the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Chamber Federation. In addition, the Leadership Cabinet will oversee the development of USCIB’s Associates program, which serves to promote an open system of world trade, finance and investment as well as developing products and services for chambers of commerce that which will assist their members efforts to enter and stay competitive in the global marketplace.
google search –
United States Council for International Business. The Leadership Cabinet
Welcome to USCIB – United States Council for International Business
Promotes an open system of world trade, finance, and investment from the perspective of business. www.uscib.org/
***
However, the ICC does by no means represent all businesses, but principally only the largest transnational corporations. The interests of these footloose global players differ significantly from those businesses which are grounded in and oriented towards a local market. But there are other fundamental questions besides whether or not the ICC is really “the world business organization”. Is it appropriate for corporations — which are supposed to compete, adapt and diversify — to organize themselves in what effectively equals a global political monopoly?
The new “partnership” between the ICC and the UN is the result of the former’s ambitious strategy pursued since Helmut Maucher took the helm in early 1997. Maucher, who recently left his job as CEO of Nestlé but remains on the board of directors, felt that the ICC had hitherto been neither sufficiently influential nor visible in the media.[10] Maucher has observed the efficient work of environmental and human rights NGOs within the UN system with great concern. In one of his first interviews as ICC president, Maucher warned: “We have to be careful that they do not get too much influence.” [11]
Within both the WTO and the UN, the ICC is pushing for the implementation of “a framework of global rules” which it plans to help draft, “as the only organization qualified to speak for every business sector in all parts of the world. Governments have to understand,” Maucher argues, “that business is not just another pressure group but a resource that will help them set the right rules.”[12] The joint statement between the UN Secretary- General and the ICC clarifies the ICC’s reasons for wanting to be involved in global decision making: “Business has a strong interest in multilateral cooperation, including standard-setting through the United Nations and other intergovernmental institutions and international conventions on the environment and other global and transborder issues.”
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), contrary to what its name might suggest, is primarily an organization representing the largest transnational corporations on earth, including corporate giants like General Motors, Novartis, Bayer and Nestlé.
The ICC, which for many years has pushed for global economic deregulation within the World Trade Organization, the G-7 and the OECD, now has its sights set on the United Nations. “The way the United Nations regards international business has changed fundamentally. This shift towards a stance more favourable to business is being nurtured from the very top,” ICC Secretary General Maria Livanos Cattaui concluded with satisfaction in a column in the International Herald Tribune in February. Cattaui quotes UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in saying that the time is ripe for consultation between the UN and business.[1]
Cattaui’s optimism was confirmed the same week in a February 9th meeting of 25 ICC business leaders with a heavyweight UN delegation headed by Kofi Annan, heralded as the first step in “a systematic dialogue.” The ICC delegation included captains of industry from Coca Cola, Unilever, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs and Rio Tinto Zinc. In a joint statement, the ICC and the UN Secretary General stated that “broad political and economic changes have opened up new opportunities for dialogue and cooperation between the United Nations and the private sector”.
The two sides committed themselves to “forge a close global partnership to secure greater business input into the world’s economic decision-making and boost the private sector in the least developed countries.” The industry representatives used the occasion to argue for “establishing an effective regulatory framework for globalization, including investment, capital markets, competition, intellectual property rights and trade facilitation.”[2] The ICC has worked with UN institutions before, but not on the highest level and not on the potentially very wide range of political matters around which ‘partnership’ now seems to have emerged.[3]
United States Council for International Business (USCIB) is an independent business advocacy group originally founded in 1945 to promote free trade and help represent U.S. business in the, then new, United Nations. One of its primary goals is expanding market access for U.S. products and services abroad. The organization is fervently pro-trade and pro market- liberalization.
The USCIB has an active membership roster of over 300 multinational companies, law firms and business associations. The roster is replete with household corporate names including 26 of the 30 Dow Jones Industrial Average members. (The number will go to 27 on February 19, 2008 when Chevron is scheduled to replace Honeywell in the Dow.) Legal and consulting multinationals are also well represented.
International Affiliations
The USCIB is the U.S. affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD and the International Organisation of Employers. It functions as the U.S. representative to the ICC’s multifaceted dispute resolution services, including the ICC International Court of Arbitration which is charged with settlement of international business disputes and the legal and procedural aspects of arbitration.
Functions
The USCIB’s three function areas are policy advocacy, dispute resolution and ATA Carnet administration.
The organization promotes business interests both to U.S. policy makers and to international groups like the United Nations. Current, stated policy priorities include advancing sustainable development, expanding international trade and investment, ensuring strong intellectual property rights and supporting information & communication technology (ICT) enabled growth.
Dispute resolution is accomplished through the USCIB’s affiliation with the ICC and its dispute resolution service which includes the ICC International Court of Arbitration. The USCIB provides assistance in the nomination of arbitrators, makes referrals to parties seeking attorneys, organizes seminars and corporate roundtables, and answers questions from U.S. businesses regarding the arbitration process and other ICC dispute resolution services.
Since 1968, when U.S. Customs assigned them the task, the USCIB has been handling the administration of international customs documents know as ATA Carnets. In this capacity the organization issues and guarantees Carnets, which allow temporary, duty-free imports overseas for goods generally qualified for use in trade shows or as commercial samples and professional equipment.
The ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) is a specialised division of the International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC). The IMB is a non-profit making … www.icc-ccs.org/
***
Coalitions – California Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB) … Chamber of Commerce involved in international trade via a Leadership Cabinet of the USCIB. … passage of a free trade agreement between the United States and the Republic of Korea. … http://www.calchamber.com/governmentrelations/lobbying/coalitions/pages/default.aspx
California Employer Coalition on Heat Stress Represents the views of California employers to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health and to the Cal/OSHA Standards Board in the form of written comments and testimony regarding potential impacts proposed regulations on heat stress might have on California businesses and their workers. Staff Contact: Marti Fisher
California Employers Coalition on Meal and Rest Period — Represents the views of California employers to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Legislature regarding potential impacts proposed regulations and legislation on meal and rest periods might have on California businesses and their workers. Staff Contact: Kyla Christoffersen
California Employers Coalition
Comprised of employers and employer association representatives, CEC reviews and comments directly on issues that affect the employer/employee relationship. This coalition is the consensus voice of California employers to the state Legislature and state agency boards regarding the impact of proposed laws and regulations on businesses. Staff Contact: Kyla Christoffersen
The Thursday Group Seeks to promote an agenda that strikes a reasonable balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The goal of the Thursday Group is to encourage California decision-makers to work with the group to strike a reasonable compromise between the impact of legislation on California’s economy and environmental protection. Staff Contact: Robert Callahan
Mission of the USTR | Office of the United States Trade Representative
The United States is party to numerous trade agreements with other countries, … The head of USTR is the U.S. Trade Representative, a Cabinet member who serves … and a member of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and … USTR provides trade policy leadership and negotiating expertise in its … http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/mission
Leadership Group – Breaux Lott
The firm unites two former United States Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux, … and Republicans and served as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. … an international business advisory firm headquartered in Austin, Texas. …. as to the Bush and Obama Administrations (White House, cabinet departments, … http://www.breauxlott.com/leadership.html
from these results above –
Leadership Group
Based in Washington, D.C., The Breaux-Lott Leadership Group offers strategic advice, consulting and lobbying to a wide range of clients. The firm unites two former United States Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux, leaders from opposite parties with a combined total of nearly 70 years experience in Congress. It is clear over the last several years that the only way to accomplish true results in Washington is through a bipartisan approach.
Senator John Breaux
Senator John Breaux is a vital voice and force in the American political arena. He led a long and distinguished career in Congress before joining Patton Boggs as senior counsel after retiring from the United States Senate in 2005. He provided strategic advice to Patton Boggs’ attorneys and clients on a wide range of public policy matters, with special concentration in the areas of healthcare and energy law. His latest venture is cofounding the Breaux-Lott Leadership Group, an all-in-the-family lobbying firm for bipartisan solutions, with former Senator Trent Lott. Exclusively represented by Leading Authorities, he tackles today’s key issues in a comfortable manner, based on many years of experience in service to the nation.
A Politician with Balance. Breaux was elected to the House of Representatives in 1972 at the age of 28–at the time of his election he was the youngest member of the United States Congress. He was a widely recognized bipartisan leader in the Senate, and in 1993 was elected by his Democratic colleagues to the post of Deputy Minority Whip, a position he held until his retirement. He also held a number of key Senate committee positions. A senior member of the Finance Committee, Breaux served as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy. He also held positions on two other Finance subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Health Care, and the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight. From his position on the Finance Committee, he played instrumental roles in forging the compromises that led to passage of the welfare reform and health insurance reform bills in 1996. He was also a leader in the efforts to reduce the capital gains tax and to provide tax relief for college education expenses.
While in the Senate, Breaux was a beacon of insight on energy issues. He served as co-chair of the Oil and Gas Caucus and was a conferee on energy legislation that was eventually written into the 2005 Energy Bill. He was active in advancing legislation to promote domestic oil and gas production, and was a cosponsor of the Marginal Well Preservation Act, a tax incentive program that encouraged oil production from marginal oil wells. He was also a principal author of the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act.
Bipartisan Solidarity. Senator Breaux was a founder of the Centrist Coalition of Senate Democrats and Republicans and served as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. In 2005 President George W. Bush appointed Breaux as the co-chair of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, while in 2006, he was chosen to be a member of the Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. Breaux continues to serve as an effective and aggressive advocate for the state of Louisiana. His mainstream approach to government has earned him praise from conservatives, liberals, and moderates across the nation. As The Shreveport Times observed in a March 1997 editorial: “Breaux has sought to build bridges between Democrats and Republicans and is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.”
Senator Trent Lott
In December 2007, Trent Lott left the United States Congress where he has worked on behalf of the people of the State of Mississippi for the past 35 years. A champion of a strong national defense, he remains dedicated to encouraging economic growth and protecting Americans’ economic security by getting government off their backs and out of their pocketbooks. Seven Presidents have known both his cooperation and his opposition, for he has kept his country ahead of partisan and personal concerns.
As the House Republican Whip in 1981, he forged the bipartisan alliance that enacted President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program and his national security initiatives. Part of the reason for this and other victories was Congressman Lott’s creation of the House of Representative’s first modern whip organization, focusing on regular member-to-member contacts and extensive outreach to sympathetic Democrats. Counting votes, building coalitions, and moving legislation were things he seemed born to do, and he genuinely enjoyed the process.
Elected to the Senate in 1988, he was a member of the group of pro-growth stalwarts who opposed the tax increase forced on President Bush in 1990. When he became the Senate’s 16th Majority Leader in 1996, he again put his coalition-building skills to the test and, along with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, enacted his historic welfare reform bill of 1996. The next year, Lott, Gingrich and congressional Budget Committee chairmen John Kasich and Pete Domenici together produced an historic budget and tax cut agreement that limited some federal spending. But more important, it created new incentives to save and invest, thereby stimulating the economic growth that brought the federal budget into balance for the first time since 1968.
As the Republican Leader during the first two years of President George W. Bush’s administration, Senator Lott led the fight for passage of the President’s tax cut package, the President’s landmark education reform bill, the largest increase in defense spending since the Cold War, the most significant trade legislation in a decade, and the resolution supporting the President on military action in Iraq.
During the Senate’s lame duck session of November 2002, Senator Lott, drawing on his experience as a legislative negotiator, reached the compromises that created the Department of Homeland Security. In 2006, Senator Lott was elected Senate Republican Whip for the second time in his career. He is the only member of Congress to hold this position in both the House and Senate.
For 16 years in the House of Representatives and 19 years in the Senate, Trent Lott has been a driving force in the United States Congress. After his retirement from the United States Senate, Senator Lott founded the Breaux Lott Leadership Group with former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, a partnership offering strategic advice, consulting and lobbying to a wide range of clients. The firm unites two former Senate leaders from opposite parties, with a combined total of nearly 70 years experience in Congress.
Senator Lott is married to Patricia (Tricia) Thompson Lott, his college sweetheart. They have two children- Chester Trent Lott, Jr. and Tyler Lott Armstrong-and have been blessed with four grandchildren, Chester Trent Lott III, Lucie Sims Lott, Shields Elizabeth Armstrong and Addison States Armstrong.
Bret Boyles
Email Bret – Download vcard
Bret K. Boyles is a founding member of the Breaux Lott Leadership Group and brings with him more than a decade of political and policy expertise. Most recently, Mr. Boyles served as Chief of Staff to Republican Whip, Senator Trent Lott. Prior to that Boyles served as Executive Director of the New Republican Majority Fund and as President of his own consulting firm, Principle Strategies Group. Early in his career Boyles served as a Legislative Assistant to Majority Leader Lott working on issues related to Commerce and Banking.
Boyles has twice been recognized by Roll Call Newspaper as a Top 50 Staffer for his “know how,” “access, ” and “strength” to get things done.
John Breaux Jr.
Download vcard
John Breaux Jr. has over 20 years experience in government and political relations and currently runs a successful consulting practice in Washington, D.C., and New Orleans, LA. Before starting his practice in 2001, Breaux Jr. served as a principal at Johnston & Associates. His experience includes serving as managing director for Public Strategies, an international business advisory firm headquartered in Austin, Texas. He also worked as a director of congressional affairs at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.
John Flynn
Email John – Download vcard
John P. Flynn joins The Breaux Lott Leadership Group with nearly 30 years of maritime and marine resource experience, including 10 years of practical experience on Capitol Hill.
Prior to joining The Breaux Lott Leadership Group, Mr. Flynn served as a government relations specialist for one of the Gulf South’s largest law firms, where he focused on maritime transportation, fisheries and other policy issues.
Mr. Flynn served as a Legislative Assistant and Congressional Fellow to U.S. Senator John Breaux (1998-2004). In this capacity, he functioned as his primary advisor on maritime, marine resource and transportation issues and related policy development. During his tenure as a staff member in the senate, Mr. Flynn worked on a wide variety of maritime and fisheries matters, including the Maritime Transportation Safety Act, Oceans Act, Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux), Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and numerous Coast Guard authorization bills. He has served as U.S. delegate to the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna.
Mr. Flynn served in the U.S. Coast Guard, both as a commissioned officer and senior enlisted member, from 1978-2002, in increasingly responsible positions, principally in the marine safety program. On the occasion of his retirement from the Coast Guard, he held virtually all attainable marine safety and marine inspection qualifications. He is also a National Interagency Incident Command System (ICS) Instructor.
Callie Fuselier Hickox assists clients on a variety of public policy and regulatory issues that come before Congress and other federal and state forums.
Before joining The Breaux Lott Leadership Group, Ms. Hickox gained extensive knowledge of the legislative process and established strong Congressional and Executive Branch relationships by working on Capitol Hill, as well as at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Patton Boggs, LLP.
During her seven years on Capitol Hill working for Senator John Breaux and then Minority Leader (now Majority Leader) Harry Reid, she worked with federal and state lawmakers on a wide range of matters. Ms. Hickox developed key relationships and interacted closely with both Democratic and Republican leadership staff, monitoring the daily legislative activity on the Senate floor. Her responsibilities also included facilitating meetings between the Senators and members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, and White House officials.
After leaving Capitol Hill, Ms. Hickox served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Commissioner Fred Hatfield at the CFTC and then as Public Policy Advisor at Patton Boggs, LLP.
Chester Trent Lott, Jr.
Email Chet – Download vcard
A graduate of the University of Mississippi (BPA), Chet Lott has an extensive business background in the private sector. In 2001, he joined his partner, former Congressman Larry Hopkins (R-KY), in forming the government relations consulting firm of Lott & Hopkins, LLC, based in Washington, DC and Lexington, KY. Two years later, the former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Honorable Bob Livingston, asked him to join prominent lobbying firm The Livingston Group. “He brings unique knowledge and experience in both private sector business and the workings of federal and state governments.”
Chet was a successful and recognized restaurateur, the recipient of many awards for operational excellence and sales. His real world experience with the way public policy impacts people’s livelihoods and businesses, along with his family tradition of public service, provided Chet an early and profound education in government and politics. He has worked on a varied set of issues affecting the defense, energy, shipping, medical/healthcare, telecommunications and gaming industries. Specific issues include contract management and procurement, border security matters, maritime and offshore energy projects.
A charitable project close to Chet’s heart is his Katrina relief benefit CD. An accomplished musician from an early age, his music has raised over $125,000 for the Southeast Mississippi Chapter of the Red Cross.
Among Lott’s passions is the sport of polo. He has reached the United States Polo Associations rating of one goal and has served on the Lexington Polo Club & National Polo Institute board of directors. Chet and his wife Diane own Augustus Hill Farm in the beautiful bluegrass area of Kentucky. The farm specializes in breaking thoroughbred racehorses for polo.
Chet has served on the Cardinal Hill Hospital board of directors and currently serves on the Headley-Whitney Museum Board of directors and the Kentucky Horse Park Board of Governors.
In January 2008, Chet joined his three partners, Senator Trent Lott, Senator John Breaux and John Breaux, Jr., in forming The Breaux Lott Leadership Group. Representing fortune 100 companies, the firm has catapulted to one of the top political consulting firms in the country. He travels weekly between Kentucky and Washington.
Kelly Mixon
Email Kelly – Download vcard
Kelly joined the Breaux Lott Leadership Group as an Associate in 2009 after serving several years as a professional staff member in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.
Ms. Mixon served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS). In this capacity, Ms. Mixon advised the Senator on issues related to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee as well as the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Previously, she was a Legislative Correspondent for U.S. Senator Trent Lott. Prior to her time in the Senate, Kelly worked as a staff member for then-U.S. Representative Roger Wicker in his Washington D.C. office.
Originally from Oxford, Mississippi; Kelly earned a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Mississippi.
Manny Rossman
Email Manny – Download vcard
A well-respected Capitol Hill veteran, Rossman brings with him nearly a decade of bipartisan, senior-level experience in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. For the last two-plus years he served as Chief of Staff to the Senate Republican Whip (Sen. Lott in 2007, and Sen. Jon Kyl in 2008-Feb. 2009), the second-ranking Republican in the Senate. As Chief of Staff, Rossman was the lead advisor and strategist to the Whip and his team of deputy whips, and was responsible for formulating strategy and implementing the priorities of a diverse caucus across all issues before the Senate. Rossman was the principal liaison from the Whip office to all Senate and House leadership offices, Committees, and Member offices, as well as to the Bush and Obama Administrations (White House, cabinet departments, and transition office).
Before serving in the Whip office, Rossman focused on the legislative activities of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees. From 2005-2006, Rossman was Finance Counsel to Sen. Lott, in which capacity he played a leading role in shaping all major tax, international trade, health care and pension legislation before the Finance Committee and the Senate, much of which is law today.
From 2003-2004 Rossman was Legislative Director to Rep. Phil Crane, then-Chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, where he worked on numerous tax and trade bills, many of them bipartisan, which were signed into law.
Rossman has a B.A. from Colgate University, and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. He and his wife, Jennifer, reside in Arlington, Virginia.
* cap-and-trade system search results
* climate change bill search results
* U.S. Chamber of Commerce search results
Related Stories
* House approves climate change bill
* U.S. climate change impacts are forecast
* Climate change: Here now and intensifying
WASHINGTON, June 26 (UPI) — The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised legislators Friday to take time to read and consider the climate change bill before voting.
The House of Representatives passed the measure 219-212 in the evening.
Tom Donohue, the chamber president and chief executive officer, said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that his group wants a bill reducing greenhouse gases. But he said any bill the chamber supports would need to avoid onerous requirements on businesses and preserve jobs, The Hill reported.
Last night, those people being asked to vote were given a 1,200-and-some-odd-page document that they have never seen before. This is ‘hurry up and do it,’ Donohue said. Bob Dole used to say to members of the Senate, ‘Let’s all hurry up and vote on this before anybody has a chance to read it.’
The chamber sent House members a letter Thursday urging them to vote against the bill in its current form.
The bill — which supporters said was crafted to limit greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean energy technology and create jobs that cannot be outsourced overseas — included the controversial cap-and-trade system, which would require polluters to accrue credits through buying and selling for all the greenhouse gases they produce. The cap-and-trade system would help reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, supporters said.
Eight Republicans voted in favor and 44 Democrats voted against the measure, which next goes to the U.S. Senate, where political analysts say it is likely to undergo some changes.
* Global warming, CO2 linkage confirmed
* Global warming causing mass migration
* Scientists urged to cut carbon emissions
CHAMPAIGN, Ill., June 16 (UPI) — U.S. scientists say climate change in the form of regional drought, higher temperatures and heavy rainfall is now common in many parts of the nation.
The scientists representing 13 U.S government agencies, universities and research institutes say the human-induced climate changes are likely to increase in intensity.
The 190-page study is said to be the most comprehensive report to date on national climate change, offering the latest information on rising temperatures, heavy downpours, extreme weather conditions, sea level changes and other results of U.S. climate change.
The study, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, focuses on effects by region and details how the nation’s transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected.
University of Illinois Professor Don Wuebbles, a contributor to the report, said average temperatures have risen in the Midwest during recent decades and the growing season has been extended by one week. Heavy downpours are now twice as frequent as they were a century ago and the Midwest has experienced two record-breaking floods during the past 15 years, he said.
Wuebbles said average annual temperatures are expected to increase by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the next few decades and by as much as 7 to 10 degrees by the end of the century.
***
2000 August – International Labor Affairs Report
After the Ministerial, USCIB President Tom Niles led a business delegation …. A week after the International Labor Conference, the United Nations held a … www.uscib.org/index.asp?documentID=1385
http://www.uscib.org/
United States Council for International Business
The United States Council for International Business promotes open markets, competitiveness and innovation, sustainable development and corporate responsibility, supported by international engagement and prudent regulation. USCIB’s vision and strength are provided by an active membership of leading corporations and organizations, while our unique global network helps turn the vision into reality. USCIB also provides a range of business services, including the ATA Carnet for temporary exports, to facilitate overseas trade and investment.
Worldwide Access, Worldwide Influence
USCIB provides key platforms for American business to participate in – and influence – major multilateral discussions and negotiations. As sole U.S. affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Organization of Employers (IOE), and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD, USCIB presents informed business views and solutions to government leaders and policy makers worldwide.
(move your cursor over a logo to learn more)
USCIB’s unique global network of business affiliates provides unparalleled access to international policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide. Our members’ views are heard in national capitals and at major international economic forums around the world.
No other American organization can provide comparable channels for business to interface with key inter-governmental bodies such as the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the International Labor Organization. ICC, IOE and BIAC act as important global business forums in their own right.
USCIB’s global approach begins at home, with Congress and the Executive Branch. We have established relationships with key U.S. government departments and officials, who look to USCIB for solid business analysis on key issues affecting U.S. commercial interests and the international economy.
Our advocacy role is enhanced by an extensive international network of business affiliations, through which USCIB pursues world business consensus and leadership on critical international economic issues, while we ensure that business views are communicated to international decision-makers and institutions.
USCIB affiliates around the world
USCIB – ICC – International Chamber of Commerce.jpg
FACTBOX: U.S. states in balancing act on budgets
Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:51am EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. states are resorting to some unusual measures to balance budgets as the economic recession decimates their revenue.
States are forbidden from running a deficit, forcing political leaders to resort to spending cuts or tax hikes during times of stress.
Forty-six U.S. states face fiscal 2010 budget deficits totaling at least $130 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. During the current fiscal year, 42 states were hit with mid-year shortfalls of a combined $60 billion, according to the Washington think-tank.
That compares with the $1.8 trillion deficit run up by the federal government, which is allowed to operate with a deficit.
So far this year, 23 states have enacted tax increases and another 13 are considering similar moves.
Here are some of the measures that have been enacted or proposed:
* Prison Cuts
Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina and Washington have closed prisons this year as a cost-cutting measure.
New York State and Kentucky changed sentencing laws and bolstered substance abuse programs to keep more drug offenders out of prison. New York expects its changed regulations to save the state about a quarter of a billion dollars a year.
The U.S. has the world’s largest prison population with one in every 31 adults in the corrections system, which includes jail, prison, probation and supervision. States spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal 2008.
* Sin taxes
Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Florida, Mississippi, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Vermont have increased tobacco taxes.
Wyoming and Maine changed the method for taxing tobacco products to base them on weight.
New York raised taxes on beer, wine and cigars.
Kentucky ended its sales tax exemption on alcoholic beverages.
California is mulling legalizing marijuana and charging a $50-per-ounce tax on it along with the state’s sale tax. Continued…
California lawmakers have further proposed increasing sales taxes on sexually-explicit content.
Virginia is considering taxing hotel movie rentals.
Georgia is mulling charging customers at erotic dance bars a $5 pole tax.
South Dakota increased taxes on gaming proceeds.
* Personal income and sales taxes
New York and Hawaii have increased taxes for the wealthy.
California increased personal income taxes by 1 percent.
California increased the sales tax by 1-cent.
Kentucky applied sales taxes to digital products, such as software and cellphone ring tones.
Maine extended its sales tax to include amusement parks and sporting events, as well as maintenance and service transactions, including auto repair and dry cleaning.
Nevada increased its sales tax by 0.35 percent.
Vermont made changes to its income tax structure that eliminates an exemption on capital gains income and caps the amount of state and local income taxes that can be deducted from federal adjusted gross income.
Virginia raised income tax revenue by restructuring a credit for land preservation.
New York raised taxes on wireless devices and increased registration fees for motorcycles, cars and boats, hunting and fishing licenses and introduced a saltwater fishing license fee. It also added a new 5-cent beverage deposit on bottled water.
* Business taxes
Iowa and Maryland scaled back business tax credits.
Kansas suspended its film production tax credit for two years.
New York restructured business tax benefits in its Empire Zone program.
Virginia expanded its corporate income tax to include investment income from real estate investment trusts.
Nevada restructured its business payroll tax.
* Court fees
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada and Utah raised court fees.
* Source: Reuters reports, Stateline.org, a nonprofit, non-partisan news service sponsored by the Pew Center on the States, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan think tank.
These funds split investments between growth stocks, income stocks/bonds, and money market instruments or cash for stability. Fund advisers switch the percentage of holdings in each asset category according to the performance of that group. Example: A fund may have 60% invested in stocks, 20% in bonds, and 20% in cash or money market. If the stock market is expected to do well, that could switch to 80% stocks, and 10% each in both bond and cash investments. Conversely, if the stock market is expected to perform poorly, the fund would decrease its stock holdings.
Fund of funds
Fund of funds implies that the assets of a fund are other funds. The other funds may be stock funds, in which case the original fund can be called fund of stock funds . See fund of funds.
Hedge funds
Hedge fund is a legal structure. Hedge funds often trade stocks, but may trade or invest in anything else depending on the fund. See hedge fund.
United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development – June 24 – 26, 2009
The United Nations is convening a three-day summit of world leaders from 24 to 26 June 2009 at its New York Headquarters to assess the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The aim is to identify emergency and long-term responses to mitigate the impact of the crisis, especially on vulnerable populations, and initiate a needed dialogue on the transformation of the international financial architecture, taking into account the needs and concerns of all Member States.
The United Nations summit of world leaders in June was mandated at the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development, held in December 2008 in Doha, Qatar. Member States requested the General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann to organize the meeting “at the highest level”.
**
Draft outcome document of the Conference on the
World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact
on Development
We, Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, met in New
York from 24 to 26 June 2009 for the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development.
1. The world is confronted with the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The evolving crisis, which began within the world’s major financial centres, has spread throughout the global economy, causing severe social, political and economic impacts. We are deeply concerned with its adverse impact on development. This crisis is negatively affecting all countries, particularly developing countries, and threatening the livelihoods, well-being and development opportunities of millions of people.
The crisis has not only highlighted longstanding systemic fragilities and imbalances, but has also led to an intensification of efforts to reform and strengthen the international financial system and architecture.
Our challenge is to ensure that actions and responses to the crisis are commensurate with its scale, depth and urgency, adequately financed, promptly implemented and appropriately coordinated internationally.
2. We reaffirm the purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in its Charter,
including “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” and “to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends”. The principles of the Charter are particularly relevant in addressing the current challenges.
The United Nations, on the basis of its universal membership and legitimacy, is well positioned to participate in various reform processes aimed at improving and strengthening the effective functioning of the international financial system and architecture.
This United Nations Conference is part of our collective effort towards recovery. It builds on and contributes to what already is being undertaken by diverse actors and in various forums, and is intended to support, inform and provide political impetus to future actions.
This Conference also highlights the importance of the role of the United Nations in international economic issues.
United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development – June 24 – 26, 2009
The United Nations is convening a three-day summit of world leaders from 24 to 26 June 2009 at its New York Headquarters to assess the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The aim is to identify emergency and long-term responses to mitigate the impact of the crisis, especially on vulnerable populations, and initiate a needed dialogue on the transformation of the international financial architecture, taking into account the needs and concerns of all Member States.
The United Nations summit of world leaders in June was mandated at the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development, held in December 2008 in Doha, Qatar. Member States requested the General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann to organize the meeting “at the highest level”.
**
Draft outcome document of the Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development
We, Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, met in New
York from 24 to 26 June 2009 for the United Nations Conference on the WorldFinancial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development.
1. The world is confronted with the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. The evolving crisis, which began within the world’s major financial centres, has spread throughout the global economy, causing severe social, political and economic impacts. We are deeply concerned with its adverse impact on development.
This crisis is negatively affecting all countries, particularly developing countries, and threatening the livelihoods, well-being and development opportunities of millions of people. The crisis has not only highlighted longstanding systemic fragilities and imbalances, but has also led to an intensification of efforts to reform and strengthen the international financial system and architecture.
Our challenge is to ensure that actions and responses to the crisis are commensurate with its scale, depth and urgency, adequately financed, promptly implemented and
appropriately coordinated internationally.
2. We reaffirm the purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in its Charter,
including “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” and “to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends”. The principles of the Charter are particularly relevant in addressing the current challenges.
The United Nations, on the basis of its universal membership and legitimacy, is well positioned to participate in various reform processes aimed at improving and strengthening the effective functioning of the international financial system and architecture.
This United Nations Conference is part of our collective effort towards recovery. It builds on and contributes to what already is being undertaken by diverse actors and in various forums, and is intended to support, inform and provide political impetus to future actions. This Conference also highlights the importance of the role of the United Nations in international economic issues.
The crisis has produced or exacerbated serious, wide-ranging yet differentiated impacts across the globe.
Since the crisis began, many States have reported negative impacts, which vary by country, region, level of development and severity, including the following:
• Rapid increases in unemployment, poverty and hunger
• Deceleration of growth, economic contraction
• Negative effects on trade balances and balance of payments
• Dwindling levels of foreign direct investment
• Large and volatile movements in exchange rates
• Growing budget deficits, falling tax revenues and reduction of fiscal space
• Contraction of world trade
• Increased volatility and falling prices for primary commodities
• Declining remittances to developing countries
• Sharply reduced revenues from tourism
• Massive reversal of private capital inflows
• Reduced access to credit and trade financing
• Reduced public confidence in financial institutions
• Reduced ability to maintain social safety nets and provide other social
services, such as health and education
• Increased infant and maternal mortality
• Collapse of housing markets. Causes of the crisis
9.
The drivers of the financial and economic crisis are complex and multifaceted.
We recognize that many of the main causes of the crisis are linked to systemic
fragilities and imbalances that contributed to the inadequate functioning of the global economy.
Major underlying factors in the current situation included inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies and inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global macroeconomic outcomes.
These factors were made acute by major failures in financial regulation, supervision and monitoring of the financial sector, and inadequate surveillance and early warning.
These regulatory failures, compounded by over-reliance on market selfregulation, overall lack of transparency, financial integrity and irresponsible behaviour, have led to excessive risk-taking, unsustainably high asset prices,irresponsible leveraging and high levels of consumption fuelled by easy credit and inflated asset prices.
Financial regulators, policymakers and institutions failed to appreciate the full measure of risks in the financial system or address the extent of the growing economic vulnerabilities and their cross-border linkages.
Insufficient emphasis on equitable human development has contributed to significant inequalities among countries and peoples. Other weaknesses of a systemic nature also contributed to the unfolding crisis, which has demonstrated the need for more effective government involvement to ensure an appropriate balance between the market and public interest.
Financial Stability Board – Financial Stability Forum
16 Jun
The Financial Stability Board will hold its Inaugural Meeting in Basel on 26-27 June.
*** Fully Spend Stimulus Money to Back Crisis Recovery, Says IMF
With advanced economies still struggling, the IMF is urging governments to fully implement the spending measures they have announced to combat the global economic crisis and not to relax in supporting an incipient recovery.click for more
# IMF Invites Input on Governance Reform
# Join the Conversation
IMF AND CIVIL SOCIETY
IMF Invites Civil Society Input Into Governance Reform
IMF Survey online
June 26, 2009
* Move follows calls from civil society for voice in reform process
* Proposals to be channeled by independently run website
* Process to culminate at IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in Istanbul
The IMF is asking civil society organizations (CSOs) for input into proposals to reform the way the institution is governed.
An independently run website has been set up to help collate and synthesize the CSO input, which will feed into IMF staff’s preparation of governance reform papers for IMF Executive Board discussions before the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in October. The process will culminate in a meeting between IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn and CSOs during the 2009 Annual Meetings in Istanbul, Turkey.
The effort to involve CSOs in IMF governance reform—called the Fourth Pillar—follows calls from civil society for a voice in the process. The move started with a series of letters to civil society figures from Strauss-Kahn in late 2008 and also involved an April videoconference between Strauss-Kahn and CSOs on three continents.
Roles reassessed
Governance reform at the IMF is one of the most important tasks facing the institution. In March 2008, the Executive Board approved a resolution increasing the voice and participation of emerging market economies and low-income countries in the institution. Now further reforms are under consideration.
Additional proposals include a reassessment of the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Governors, the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), the Executive Board, and IMF Management, as well as procedures for selecting the IMF Managing Director. The Fourth Pillar—like the other three pillars—will inform a forthcoming Board paper on governance reform, which will be presented to the Board of Governors at the 2009 Annual Meetings in Istanbul.
The three existing pillars comprise work already done by
• The IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office, which released a report on “Governance of the IMF” in May 2008
• The IMF Executive Board, which is examining proposals from a Working Group on IMF Corporate Governance, and
• The Committee of Eminent Persons on IMF Governance Reform, which reported in March 2009.
The IMF uses the term civil society organization to refer to the wide range of citizens’ associations that exists in virtually all member countries to provide benefits, services, or political influence to specific groups within society. CSOs include business forums, faith-based associations, labor unions, local community groups, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, and think tanks. Usually excluded are branches of government—such as government agencies and legislators—and also individual businesses, political parties, and the media. Labor unions often distinguish themselves from CSOs.
Road to Istanbul
June 19: the CSO administrator has submitted the first round of core documents to the IMF staff who are writing a paper to be discussed by the IMF Board on July 22.
By Friday, July 10: the CSO administrator will draft a three-page paper compiling principles, recommendations, and issues to be submitted to the IMF Board for its meeting of July 22.
Mid-June to mid-August: CSOs will meet personally or by teleconference and/or video conference with IMF staff to discuss additional inputs, indicate priorities, and exchange views.
Late August/early September: an informal CSO meeting with the IMF Board is to be arranged.
Early September: CSO recommendations to be submitted.
October 6/7: at the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in Istanbul, Strauss-Kahn will meet with CSOs to discuss their inputs and proposals.
The IMF has invited the New Rules for Global Finance Coalition to coordinate the inputs and interaction with CSOs during the consultation period. The coalition is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates advancing reforms of the governance and practices of international financial institutions.
The IMF is providing logistical support through the funding and development of the independent and interactive website, where CSOs can submit materials, engage in debates, and offer feedback. New Rules for Global Finance will be the sole administrator of the website.
Proposals can be submitted through the website, or directly to the IMF at ngoliaison@imf.org. A representation of submitted materials will be translated into French, Spanish, and English; translations in additional languages will be accommodated where possible.
Comments on this article should be sent to imfsurvey@imf.org
# FSF Principles for Cross-border Cooperation on Crisis Management
# FSF Principles for Sound Compensation Practices
# Ongoing and Recent Work Relevant to Sound Financial Systems
# Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Addressing Procyclicality in the Financial System
# Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience – Update on Implementation
Recommendations and principles to strengthen financial systems
On 2 April 2009, the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) issued reports covering:
* Recommendations for Addressing Procyclicality in the Financial System;
* Principles for Sound Compensation Practices; and
* Principles for Cross-border Cooperation on Crisis Management.
The Forum also published today an update on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the FSF’s April 2008 Report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience.
Addressing procyclicality in the financial system
The present crisis has demonstrated the disruptive effects of procyclicality – mutually reinforcing interactions between the financial and real sectors of the economy that tend to amplify business cycle fluctuations and cause or exacerbate financial instability. Addressing procyclicality in the financial system is an essential component of strengthening the macroprudential orientation of regulatory and supervisory frameworks.
The recommendations set out in this report mitigate mechanisms that amplify procyclicality in both good and bad times. They encompass a mix of quantitative/rules-based and discretionary measures that are interrelated and reinforce one another. They will be implemented over time once conditions in financial markets return to normal.
Principles for Sound Compensation Practices
The Principles require compensation practices in the financial industry to align employees’ incentives with the long-term profitability of the firm. The principles call for effective governance of compensation, and for compensation to be adjusted for all types of risk, to be symmetric with risk outcomes, and to be sensitive to the time horizon of risks. Implementation by firms will be reinforced through supervisory examinations at the national level.
Principles for Cross-border Cooperation on Crisis Management
Through these Principles , relevant authorities, including supervisory agencies, central banks and finance ministries, commit to cooperate both in making advanced preparations for dealing with financial crisis and in managing them.
Update on the Implementation of the April 2008 FSF Recommendations
The update on progress in implementing the recommendations of the April 2008 Report on Enhancing Market and Institutional Resilience covers actions in five areas: (i) strengthening capital, liquidity and risk management in the financial system; (ii) enhancing transparency and valuation; (iii) changing the role and uses of credit ratings; (iv) strengthening the authorities’ responsiveness to risks; and (v) putting in place robust arrangements for dealing with stress in the financial system.
The previous follow-up report, issued in October 2008, is available here.
Recalls and Product Safety News
Help keep your family safe by checking product recalls and safety news from CPSC.
Neighborhood Safety Network (Español)
Help all Americans become aware of lifesaving safety information.
Report an Unsafe Product
Report an incident with a product that caused an injury. Medical Professionals and Fire/Police Investigators: file MECAP, incident reports.
***
Qantas cuts back on Dreamliner order
SIDNEY, Australia, June 26 (UPI) — Australian airline Qantas Airways said Friday it was canceling an order for 15 Dreamliner 787 jets, Boeing’s long-delayed, wide-body aircraft.
Qantas cuts back on Dreamliner order
Published: June 26, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Boeing employees clean a 787 Dreamliner wing at the company’s plant during Boeing’s Media Day on May 19, 2008 in Everett, Washington. The Dreamliner, the first new Boeing jet in 14 years, is being built in the 42-acre factory and is slated for its first flight sometime late in 2008. (UPI Photo/Jim Bryant)
Related Stories
* Boeing delays launch of 787 Dreamliner
* Boeing 787 Dreamliner in final tune-ups
* Dreamliner 787 finishing final tests
* Boeing: 787 on track for first flight
* Boeing says a Dreamliner order is canceled
* Test Boeing 787s have temporary fasteners
SIDNEY, Australia, June 26 (UPI) — Australian airline Qantas Airways said Friday it was canceling an order for 15 Dreamliner 787 jets, Boeing’s long-delayed, wide-body aircraft.
The airline also said it would put off delivery of 15 other 787 Dreamliners for four years, The New York Times reported Friday.
A cancellation of 15 jets would save the company $3 billion, Qantas said.
Qantas is still represents Boeing’s largest customer for the more-fuel efficient aircraft, with 50 other jets on order.
Chief Executive Officer Alan Joyce said the cancellation was an economic decision, not based on the latest delay of the aircraft’s first test flight, which Boeing announced earlier this week.
Qantas announced its original B787 order in December 2005, and the operating environment for the world’s airlines has clearly changed dramatically since then, Joyce said.
That explanation, however, does not bode well for Boeing, as many other airlines are suffering from falling revenue and could follow suit with canceled or delayed orders.
For Qantas to pull or defer deliveries is a major, major step, said industry analyst Derek Sadubin, at the Center for Asia Pacific Aviation, an Australian consulting company.
CHICAGO, Feb. 2 (UPI) — U.S plane maker Boeing said a customer, presumably Russian airline S7, canceled its order for 15 new 787 Dreamliner jets.
The company planned to identify the customer later Monday, the Financial Times reported.
Although long production delays have forced Boeing to give discounts on Dreamliner orders to customers, Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney said the cancellation was due to the economic environment, not the delays.
Boeing said a machinist strike and a charge of $685 million for delays in the development of the latest 747 jumbo jet resulted in a loss of $56 million in the fourth quarter. The company announced it was cutting 10,000 jobs to adjust to the slowing economy.
In 2007, Boeing made $1 billion in the fourth quarter.
Before the cancellation, there were 910 Dreamliners on order. McNerney said Boeing expected other cancellations as the economy slowed.
* Boeing to lay off an additional 5,500
* Boeing snags Osprey service contract
* Boeing receives full funding for satellite
* Boeing contracts GE for Indian navy P-8Is
* Test Boeing 787s have temporary fasteners
[also]
* Boeing to discuss B787 costs with partners: paper
* Boeing CEO calls slump ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ event
* Boeing delays Dreamliner test flight again
Data Centre
Last update: 10 June 2009
Online databases
Annual Core indicators Short-term Indicators for Asia and the Pacific
Annual Core indicatorsAnnual Core Indicators (last update: 21 April 2009).The online database contains time series data for selected indicators covering a wide range of issues in relation to the secretariat’s work: demography, migration, education, health, poverty, gender, employment, economy, government finance, employment, transport, and environment.
Among other indicators, this database contains data published in the Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2008. The time series are generally longer and more complete in the database. Because of different presentation requirements, the indicator names in the database and the Yearbook may be slightly different.
Short-term Indicators for Asia and the PacificShort-term indicators (last update: 10 June 2009). The online database contains time series data for 31 of the regional members and associate members of ESCAP and is designed to provide up-to-date monthly (or quarterly) data to assess economic trends for countries or areas in the region. The online database covers the period from January 2003 and is updated every quarter.
Short-term indicators: Introduction and explanatory note.
UNESCAP – United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
United Nations Statistics Division
***
Jacques Polak Research Conference
Call for Papers: Financial Frictions and Macroeconomic Adjustment
November 5—6, 2009
Previous IMF Annual Research Conferences
* Macro-Financial Linkages November 13–14, 2008
* Exchange Rates
November 15-16, 2007
* Capital Flows
November 9-10, 2006
The International Monetary Fund will hold the Tenth Annual Jacques Polak Research Conference at its headquarters in Washington, DC, on November 5-6, 2009.
The conference is intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. Ricardo Caballero (MIT) will deliver the Mundell-Fleming lecture.
The theme of this year’s conference is Financial Frictions and Macroeconomic Adjustment. Possible topics include (but are not restricted to):
* Dynamics of balance sheets and insolvencies during liquidity and solvency crises
* Amplification mechanisms during financial crises and their macroeconomic implications
* The impact of balance sheet adjustments on macroeconomic and financial aggregates
* Lessons from history and country cases about liquidity and solvency crises, and their resolution
* Policy responses to cope with financial imbalances and widespread insolvencies
* The treatment of insolvencies in various legal frameworks and its effects on aggregate outcomes
* The political economy of insolvencies and bailouts
Papers that do not fit into these categories, but that are related to the main theme of the conference, are also welcome.
Interested contributors should submit a draft paper or a two-page proposal to the Program Committee. The proposal should include the title of the paper, the author(s)’ affiliation and contact information, the main questions to be examined, the most relevant literature, the intended contribution of the paper to the literature, and the possible data sets and methodology to be employed. Authors should also provide a copy of their curriculum vitae. All presenters will be reimbursed for travel expenses and accommodation.
Please submit your proposals (in a Word or PDF file) by May 31, 2009 (e-mail to ARC2009@imf.org). Please use the contact author’s name as the name of the file. The Program Committee will evaluate all proposals in terms of originality, analytical rigor, and policy relevance and will contact the authors whose papers have been selected by late June. A 15-page work-in-progress draft will be required by August 14, 2009. Further information on the conference program will be posted on the this webpage.
Advanced eonomies are experiencing a serious downturn in the face of the most dangerous shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s. The major advanced economies are in recession, following the world economy’s longest run of high growth, low inflation, and low interest rates in the postwar period.
To combat the crisis, leaders of advanced economies have undertaken an unprecedented and concerted fiscal expansion to create jobs. Central banks in many advanced economies have also taken exceptional action, aggressively cutting interest rates in many cases and pledging to maintain expansionary policies for as long as needed.
And policymakers are taking steps to restore the normal flow of credit through the financial system—a move designed to breathe new life into the economy—although this is an area where the IMF thinks more needs to be done.
This page highlights the main policy issues facing the advanced economies, as well as the IMF’s work to monitor, advise, and support them.
Country News
*
IMF’s Regular Review of Sweden’s Economy
Press release
*
IMF’s Regular Review of Euro Area Countries
Press release
*
IMF Reviews Loan to Iceland
Press release
*
IMF’s Regular Review of Greece’s Economy
Press release
*
IMF’s Regular Review of New Zealand’s Economy
Public information notice
*
IMF’s Regular Review of Luxembourg’s Economy
Press release
*
IMF’s Regular Review of Canada’s Economy
Press release
IMF Policy Papers
*
Why Has Japan Been Hit So Hard by the Global Recession?
Policy paper
*
U.S. Fed Balance Sheet: What Happened and Why it Matters
Working paper
*
Systemic Bank Restructuring
Policy report
*
The Crisis: Basic Mechanisms and Appropriate Policies
Working paper
*
Reforming the International Financial Architecture
Working paper
*
Fiscal Implications of the Crisis
Policy report
*
Initial Lessons of the Crisis
Policy report
Background Information
*
Promoting Global Economic Stability
Factsheet
*
IMF Surveillance of Countries’ Policies
Factsheet
*
IMF’s Work on Vulnerability Indicators
Factsheet
*
Multilateral Consultation on Global Imbalances
Group of Eight redirects here. For the Australian league of universities, see Group of Eight (Australian universities). For the Pontiac vehicle with the same name, see Pontiac G8. For other uses, see G8 (disambiguation).
Group of Eight
Map of G8 member nations and the European Union
Canada
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
France
President Nicolas Sarkozy
Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel
Italy
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
President of the G8 for 2009
Japan
Prime Minister Taro Aso
Russia
President Dmitry Medvedev
United Kingdom
Prime Minister Gordon Brown
United States
President Barack Obama
Also represented
European Union[1]
Commission President José Manuel Barroso
Council President Jan Fischer
The Group of Eight (G8, and formerly the G6 or Group of Six) is a forum, created by France in 1975, for governments of eight nations of the northern hemisphere: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; in addition, the European Union is represented within the G8, but cannot host or chair.[1] G8 can refer to the member states or to the annual summit meeting of the G8 heads of government. The former term, G6, is now frequently applied to the six most populous countries within the European Union (see G6 (EU)). G8 ministers also meet throughout the year, such as the G7/8 finance ministers (who meet four times a year), G8 foreign ministers, or G8 environment ministers.
Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through the member states in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada. The holder of the presidency sets the agenda, hosts the summit for that year, and determines which ministerial meetings will take place. Lately, both France and the United Kingdom have expressed a desire to expand the group to include five developing countries, referred to as the Outreach Five (O5) or the Plus Five: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. These countries have participated as guests in previous meetings, which are sometimes called G8+5. Recently, France, Germany, and Italy are lobbying to include Egypt to the O5 and expand the G8 to G14.[2] Contents
* 1 History
* 2 Structure and activities
o 2.1 Global energy
o 2.2 The Annual Summit
* 3 G8 member facts
* 4 Cumulative influence of member nations
* 5 Criticism and demonstrations
* 6 See also
* 7 Notes, links, and references
o 7.1 External links
o 7.2 Official G8 sites of member states (not summit specific)
o 7.3 References
o 7.4 Footnotes
History
The concept of a forum for the world’s major industrialized democracies emerged following the 1973 oil crisis and subsequent global recession. In 1974 the United States created the Library Group, an informal gathering of senior financial officials from the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Japan and France. In 1975, French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing invited the heads of government from West Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States to a summit in Rambouillet. The six leaders agreed to an annual meeting organized under a rotating presidency, forming the Group of Six (G6). The following year, Canada joined the group at the behest of Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and U.S. President Gerald Ford[3] and the group became the ‘Group of Seven’ -or G7. The European Union is represented by the President of the European Commission and the leader of the country that holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The President of the European Commission has attended all meetings since it was first invited by the United Kingdom in 1977[4] and the Council President now also regularly attends.
Following 1994’s G7 summit in Naples, Russian officials held separate meetings with leaders of the G7 after the group’s summits. This informal arrangement was dubbed the Political 8 (P8) – or, colloquially, the G7+1. At the invitation of United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton[5], Russia formally joined the group in 1997, resulting in the Group of Eight, or G8.
Structure and activities
Leaders of the G8 on 7 June 2007, in Heiligendamm, Germany
The G8 is intended to be an informal forum, and it therefore lacks an administrative structure like those for international organizations, such as the United Nations or the World Bank. The group does not have a permanent secretariat, or offices for its members. In 2008, the president of the European Union Commission participated as an equal in all summit events.
The presidency of the group rotates annually among the member countries, with each new term beginning on 1 January of the year. The country holding the presidency is responsible for planning and hosting a series of ministerial-level meetings, leading up to a mid-year summit attended by the heads of government. Japan held the G8 presidency in 2008, Italy is the 2009 president, and Canada will be president in 2010.
The ministerial meetings bring together ministers responsible for various portfolios to discuss issues of mutual or global concern. The range of topics include health, law enforcement, labor, economic and social development, energy, environment, foreign affairs, justice and interior, terrorism, and trade. There are also a separate set of meetings known as the G8+5, created during the 2005 Gleneagles, Scotland summit, that is attended by finance and energy ministers from all eight member countries in addition to the five Outreach Countries : Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa.
In June 2005, justice ministers and interior ministers from the G8 countries agreed to launch an international database on pedophiles.[6] The G8 officials also agreed to pool data on terrorism, subject to restrictions by privacy and security laws in individual countries.[7]
Global energy
Main articles: International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation and Climate Investment Funds
At the Heiligendamm Summit in 2007, the G8 acknowledged a proposal from the EU for a worldwide initiative on energy efficiency. They agreed to explore, along with the International Energy Agency, the most effective means to promote energy efficiency internationally. A year later, on 8 June 2008, the G8 along with China, India, South Korea and the European Community established the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, at the Energy Ministerial meeting hosted by Japan holding 2008 G8 Presidency, in Aomori. [8]
G8 Finance Ministers, whilst in preparation for the 34th Summit of the G8 Heads of State and Government in Toyako, Hokkaido, met on the 13 and 14 June 2008, in Osaka, Japan. They agreed to the “G8 Action Plan for Climate Change to Enhance the Engagement of Private and Public Financial Institutions.” In closing, Ministers supported the launch of new Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) by the World Bank, which will help existing efforts until a new framework under the UNFCCC is implemented after 2012. [9]
The Annual Summit
At the 34th G8 Summit at Toyako, Hokkaido, formal photo during Tanabata matsuri event for world leaders — Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Dmitry Medvedev (Russia), Angela Merkel (Germany), Gordon Brown (UK), Yasuo Fukuda (Japan), George Bush (US), Stephen Harper (Canada), Nicolas Sarkozy (France), José Barroso (EU) — July 7, 2008.
The annual G8 leaders summit is attended by eight of the world’s most powerful heads of government. However, as noted by commentators the G-8 summit is not the place to flesh out the details of any difficult or controversial policy issue in the context of a three-day event. Rather, the meeting is to bring a range of complex and sometimes inter-related issues. The G8 summit brings leaders together not so they can dream up quick fixes, but to talk and think about them together.[10]
The G8 summit is an international event which is observed and reported by news media, but the G8’s relevance is unclear.[11] The member country holding the G8 presidency is responsible for organising and hosting the year’s summit, held for three days in mid-year; and for this reason, Tony Blair and the United Kingdom accumulated the lion’s share of the credit for what went right (and wrong) at Gleneagles in 2005. Similarly, Yasuo Fukuda and Japan hope to garner the greater part of the credit for what went well (and what did not) at the Hokkaido Summit in 2008.
Each of the 34 G8 summit meetings could have been called a success if the events had been re-framed as venues to generate additional momentum for solving problems at the other multilateral conferences that meet throughout the year. The G8 summit sets the stage for what needs to be done and establishes an idea of how to do it, even if that idea is, at best, rough and patchy.[10]
The summits have also been the site of numerous, large-scale anti-globalization protests.
Date Host country Host leader Location held Website Notes
1st November 15–17, 1975 France Valéry Giscard d’Estaing Rambouillet G6 Summit
2nd June 27–28, 1976 United States Gerald R. Ford San Juan, Puerto Rico Canada joins the group, forming the G7
3rd May 7–8, 1977 United Kingdom James Callaghan London President of the European Commission is invited to join the annual G-7 summits
4th July 16–17, 1978 West Germany Helmut Schmidt Bonn, North Rhine-Westphalia
5th June 28–29, 1979 Japan Masayoshi O-hira Tokyo
6th June 22–3, 1980 Italy Francesco Cossiga Venice
7th July 20–21, 1981 Canada Pierre E. Trudeau Montebello, Quebec
8th June 4–6, 1982 France François Mitterrand Versailles
9th May 28–30, 1983 United States Ronald Reagan Williamsburg, Virginia
10th June 7–9, 1984 United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher London
11th May 2–4, 1985 West Germany Helmut Kohl Bonn, North Rhine-Westphalia
12th May 4–6, 1986 Japan Yasuhiro Nakasone Tokyo
13th June 8–10, 1987 Italy Amintore Fanfani Venice
14th June 19–21, 1988 Canada Brian Mulroney Toronto, Ontario
15th July 14–16, 1989 France François Mitterrand Paris
16th July 9–11, 1990 United States George H. W. Bush Houston, Texas
17th July 15–17, 1991 United Kingdom John Major London
18th July 6–8, 1992 Germany Helmut Kohl Munich, Bavaria
19th July 7–9, 1993 Japan Kiichi Miyazawa Tokyo
20th July 8–10, 1994 Italy Silvio Berlusconi Naples
21st June 15–17, 1995 Canada Jean Chrétien Halifax, Nova Scotia
22nd June 27–29, 1996 France Jacques Chirac Lyon International organizations’ debut to G8 Summits periodically. The invited ones here were: United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.[12]
23rd June 20–22, 1997 United States Bill Clinton Denver, Colorado [1] Russia joins the group, forming G8
24th May 15–17, 1998 United Kingdom Tony Blair Birmingham, England [2]
25th June 18–20, 1999 Germany Gerhard Schröder Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia [3] First Summit of the G-20 major economies at Berlin
26th July 21–23, 2000 Japan Yoshiro Mori Nago, Okinawa [4] Formation of the G8+5 starts, when South Africa was invited. Since then, it has been invited to the Summit annually without interruption. Also, with permission from a G8 leader, other nations were invited to the Summit on a periodical basis for the first time. Nigeria, Algeria and Senegal accepted their invitations here. The World Health Organization was also invited for the first time, too.[12]
27th July 20–22, 2001 Italy Silvio Berlusconi Genoa [5] Leaders from Bangladesh, Mali and El Salvador accepted their invitations here.[12] Demonstrator Carlo Giuliani is shot and killed by police.
28th June 26–27, 2002 Canada Jean Chrétien Kananaskis, Alberta [6] Russia gains permission to officially host a G8 Summit.
29th June 2–3, 2003 France Jacques Chirac Évian-les-Bains [7] The G8+5 was unofficially made, when China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa were invited to this Summit for the first time. Other first-time nations that were invited by the French president included: Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Switzerland.[12]
30th June 8–10, 2004 United States George W. Bush Sea Island, Georgia [8] A record number of leaders from 12 different nations accepted their invitations here. Amongst a couple of veteran nations, the others were: Ghana, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Yemen and Uganda.[12]
31st July 6–8, 2005 United Kingdom Tony Blair Gleneagles, Scotland [9] The G8+5 was officially formed. On the second day of the meeting, suicide bombers killed over 50 people on the London Underground and a bus. Nations that were invited for the first time were Ethiopia and Tanzania. The African Union and the International Energy Agency made their debut here.[12]
32nd July 15–17, 2006 Russia Vladimir Putin Strelna, St. Petersburg [10] First G8 Summit on Russian soil. Also, the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNESCO made their debut here.[12]
33rd June 6–8, 2007 Germany Angela Merkel Heiligendamm, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern [11] A record seven different international organizations accepted their invitations to this Summit. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Commonwealth of Independent States made their debut here.[12]
34th July 7–9, 2008 Japan Yasuo Fukuda Toyako (Lake Toya), Hokkaido [12] Nations that accepted their G8 Summit invitations for the first time are: Australia, Indonesia and South Korea.[12]
35th July 8-10, 2009 Italy Silvio Berlusconi L’Aquila [13] [13] This summit was originally planned to be in La Maddalena (Sardinia), but was moved to L’Aquila as a way of showing Prime Minister Berlusconi’s desire to help the region of L’Aquila after the earthquake that hit it on the 6 April 2009. Official website is now online.
36th 2010 Canada Huntsville, Ontario [14]
37th 2011 France TBD
38th 2012 United States TBD
39th 2013 United Kingdom
40th 2014 Russia
41st 2015 Germany
42nd 2016 Japan
43rd 2017 Italy
44th 2018 Canada
G8 member facts
Seven of the nine leading export countries are in the G8[14] (Germany, US, Japan, France, Italy, UK, Canada). The UK, the USA, Canada, France, and Germany have nominal per capita GDP over US$40,000 dollars.[15] Five of the seven largest stock exchanges by market value are in G8 countries[16] (US, Japan, UK, France, Canada). The G8 countries represent 7 of the 9 largest economies by nominal GDP[17] (Russia isn’t one of the 9 largest economies by nominal GDP but has the 7th largest real GDP; Canada was 8th in 2006 but in 2007 it lost 8th place to Spain, as it did in 2003,[17] prompting the previous government headed by José María Aznar to request Spain’s entrance in the G8).
The 2nd and 3rd largest oil producers (USA and Russia) and the country with the 2nd largest reserves (Canada) are in the G8.[18] Seven of the nine largest nuclear energy producers are in the G8[19] (USA, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, Canada, UK). The 7 largest donors to the UN budget are in the G8[20] (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada).
Cumulative influence of member nations
Together the eight countries making up the G8 represent about 14% of the world population, but they represent about 65% of the Gross World Product[21] as measured by gross domestic product, being all 8 nations within the top 12 countries according to the CIA World Factbook. (see the CIA World Factbook column in List of countries by GDP (nominal)), the majority of global military power (seven are in the top 8 nations for military expenditure[22]), and almost all of the world’s active nuclear weapons.[23] In 2007, the combined G8 military spending was US$850 billion. This is 72% of the world’s total military expenditures. (see List of countries and federations by military expenditures) Four of the G8 members United Kingdom, United States of America, France and Russia together account for 96-99% of the world’s nuclear weapons. (see List of states with nuclear weapons)
Criticism and demonstrations
Protesters try to stop members of the G8 from attending the summit during the 27th G8 summit in Genoa, Italy by burning vehicles on the main route to the summit
As the annual summits are extremely high profile, they are subject to extensive lobbying by advocacy groups and street demonstrations by activists.
The best-known criticisms centre on the assertion that members of G8 are responsible for global issues such as poverty in Africa and developing countries due to debt and trading policy, global warming due to carbon dioxide emission, the AIDS problem due to strict medicine patent policy and other issues related to globalization. During the 31st G8 summit in Scotland, 225,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh as part of the Make Poverty History campaign calling for Trade Justice, Debt Relief and Better Aid. Numerous other demonstrations also took place challenging the legitimacy of the G8.[24]
Of the anti-globalization movement protests, one of the largest and most violent occurred for the 27th G8 summit [15]. Since that G8 Summit and the subsequent September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States occurred months apart in the same year, the G8 have gathered at some forms of remote locations every year since then. The 7 July 2005 London bombings were timed to coincide with the 31st G8 summit in Scotland.
The group has also been criticized for its membership, which critics argue has now become unrepresentative of the world’s most powerful economies since Canada was overtaken by China, India, Brazil, Spain, Mexico and South Korea by PPP adjusted GDP.[25] Furthermore, Russia was allowed into the group despite only being in 11th place in terms of nominal GDP.
See also
* 34th G8 summit
* Anti-globalization movement
* BRIC
* Developing 8 Countries
* Eight-Nation Alliance
* Forum for the Future
* Group of Three
* Group of Seven
* G8 Research Group
* G8+5
* Group of 11
* Group of 14
* G20 developing nations
* G-20 major economies
* Group of 33
* Junior 8
* List of countries by military expenditures
* List of countries by nominal gross domestic product
* List of G8 summit resorts
* Next Eleven
* Senior G8 leader
* World Social Forum
Notes, links, and references
External links
Further information: 34th G8 summit
Sister project Wikimedia Commons has media related to: G8
Sister project Wikinews has related news:
G8
* G8 Information Centre, G8 Research Group, University of Toronto
* G8: The World Can’t Wait , Oxfam International G8 Blog , oxfam.org
* Special Report: G8 , Guardian Unlimited
* Profile: G8 , BBC News
* We are deeply concerned. Again , New Statesman, 4 July 2005, —G8 development concerns since 1977
* G8 Dossier by the Internationalist Review, —On-line dossier with analysis, photo series and links on G8 protests
* FACTBOX – Climate Change High on G8 Agenda In Japan (Planet Ark).
* G8 Reaches Tentative Climate Change Deal.
* Anti G8, Anti globalization Forum at http://www.3monkeyz.net
* Financial rescue plans from G7 and EU countries, 12 October 2008
Official G8 sites of member states (not summit specific)
* Canada
* United Kingdom
o History of the G8 —UK government site
Flag of Canada Harper * Flag of France Sarkozy * Flag of Germany Merkel * Flag of Italy Berlusconi * Flag of Japan Aso * Flag of Russia Medvedev * Flag of the United Kingdom Brown * Flag of the United States Obama
v • d • e G8 Foreign Ministers
Flag of Canada Cannon * Flag of France Kouchner * Flag of Germany Steinmeier * Flag of Italy Frattini * Flag of Japan Nakasone * Flag of Russia Lavrov * Flag of the United Kingdom Miliband * Flag of the United States Clinton
v • d • e G8 Finance Ministers
Flag of Canada Flaherty * Flag of France Lagarde * Flag of Germany Steinbrück * Flag of Italy Tremonti * Flag of Japan Yosano * Flag of Russia Kudrin * Flag of the United Kingdom Darling * Flag of the United States Geithner
v • d • e G8 Defence Ministers
Flag of Canada MacKay * Flag of France Morin * Flag of Germany Jung * Flag of Italy La Russa * Flag of Japan Hamada * Flag of Russia Serdyukov * Flag of the United Kingdom Ainsworth * Flag of the United States Gates
v • d • e
G8 Justice Ministers
Flag of Canada Nicholson A Flag of France Alliot-Marie A Flag of Germany Zypries A Flag of Italy Alfano A Flag of Japan Mori A Flag of Russia Konovalov A Flag of the United Kingdom Straw A Flag of the United States Holder
v • d • e
G8 Interior Ministers
Flag of Canada Van Loan * Flag of France Hortefeux * Flag of Germany Schäuble * Flag of Italy Maroni * Flag of Japan Sato * Flag of Russia Nurgaliyev * Flag of the United Kingdom Johnson * Flag of the United States Napolitano
v • d • e
G8 summits
1970s
1975 1st G6 summit Rambouillet * 1976 2nd G7 summit San Juan * 1977 3rd G7 summit London * 1978 4th G7 summit Bonn * 1979 5th G7 summit Tokyo
2010 36th G8 summit Huntsville * 2011 37th G8 summit
In this context, G6=G7=G8 — each are construed as evolving iterations of the same entity.
v • d • e Power in international relations Types of power
Philosophical power * Soft power * Hard power * Smart power * Political power (Machtpolitik • Realpolitik) Types of power status
Middle power * Regional power * Great power * Superpower (Potential superpowers * Energy superpower) * Hyperpower Geopolitics
British Century * American Century * Chinese Century * Asian Century Theory and history
Balance of power * Historical powers * Polarity * Military power projection * Power transition theory * Second Superpower * Superpower collapse * Superpower disengagement Organizations and groups
G2 (proposed) * G7 * G8 * G8+5 * G10 * G15 * G20 (finance) * G20 (developing) * G33 (developing) * G77 (G24, chapter of G77) * BRIC * Next Eleven * SCO * ACD * NATO * CSTO * ANZUS * South American Defense Council * ASEAN * APEC
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8
Categories: G8 | International organizations | Diplomatic conferences | Country classifications
* This page was last modified on 14 June 2009 at 17:40.
35th G8 summit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
35th G8 summit
35th G8 summit official logo
Summit details
Host country Italy
Dates July 8–10, 2009
The 35th G8 summit is to take place in the city of L’Aquila, Abruzzo, from July 8-10 2009. It has been moved from the Sardinian seaside resort of La Maddalena as part of an attempt to redistribute disaster funds after L’Aquila was struck by a devastating earthquake in April 2009. [1] The locations of previous summits to have been hosted by Italy include: Venice (1980); Venice (1987); Naples (1994) and Genoa (2001).[2] The G8 Summit has evolved beyond being a gathering of world political leaders. The event has become an occasion for a wide variety of non-governmental organizations, activists and civic groups to congregate and discuss a multitude of issues.[3]
Contents
* 1 Overview
* 2 Leaders at the summit
o 2.1 Permanent G8 participants
o 2.2 Invited leaders (partial participation)
+ 2.2.1 G8+5 leaders
+ 2.2.2 Other leaders
+ 2.2.3 Heads of international organizations
* 3 Priorities
* 4 Issues
o 4.1 Schedule and Agenda
o 4.2 Afghanistan pre-summit
o 4.3 Infrastructure Consortium for Africa
* 5 Issues
o 5.1 Africa
o 5.2 Climate change
* 6 Citizens’ responses and authorities’ counter-responses
o 6.1 Protesters and demonstrations
o 6.2 Citizen journalism
* 7 Accomplishments
* 8 Security
* 9 Budget
* 10 Business opportunity
* 11 See also
* 12 Notes
* 13 References
* 14 External links
Overview
The Group of Seven (G7) was an unofficial forum which brought together the heads of the richest industrialized countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada starting in 1976. The G8, meeting for the first time in 1997, was formed with the addition of Russia.[4] In addition, the President of the European Commission has been formally invited to summits since 1981 and participates in all but political discussion and talks.[5] The summits were not meant to be linked formally with wider international institutions; and in fact, a mild rebellion against the stiff formality of other international meetings was a part of the genesis of cooperation between France’s President Giscard d’Estaing and Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Schmidt as they conceived the initial summit of the Group of Six (G6) in 1975.[6]
The G8 summits during the twenty-first century have inspired widespread debates, protests and demonstrations; and the two- or three-day event becomes more than the sum of its parts, elevating the participants, the issues and the venue as focal points for activist pressure.[7]
Leaders at the summit
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced at the press conference at the end of the second day of the Hokkaido summit that the current number of participants will be maintained when the G8 leaders meet in 2009. Berlusconi also explained that a proposal to expand the G8 to include members of the Group of Five (G8+G5) emerging economies – China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa – had not found sufficient support.[8]
France would like to see China become a full member by the time the 37th G8 summit in 2011 is organized.[9]
Political changes in the G8 member nations are likely to affect the composition of the 35th G8 summit.[10]
Permanent G8 participants
The 35th G8 summit will be the first for United States President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso.
Flag of Canada Canada
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
122px-StephenHarper.jpg
Flag of France France
Nicolas Sarkozy, President
90px-Nicolas_Sarkozy_-_Sarkozy_meeting_in_Toulouse_for_the_2007_French_presidential_election_0299_2007-04-12_cropped_further.jpg
Flag of Germany Germany
Angela Merkel, Chancellor
81px-Angela_Merkel_24092007.jpg
Flag of Italy Italy
Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister
(Chairman)
81px-Silvio_Berlusconi_29-01-2008.jpg
Flag of Japan Japan
Taro Aso, Prime Minister
89px-Taro_Aso_cropped.jpg
Flag of Russia Russia
Dmitri Medvedev, President
86px-Dmitry_Medvedev_official_large_photo_-5.jpg
Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom
Gordon Brown, Prime Minister
91px-Gordon_Brown_Davos_Jan_08.jpg
Flag of the United States United States
Barack Obama, President
88px-Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg
Invited leaders (partial participation)
A number of national leaders are traditionally invited to attend the summit and to participate in some, but not all, G8 summit activities.[9]
G8+5 leaders
The G8 plus the five largest emerging economies are known as G8+5,[9] including:
Flag of Brazil Brazil
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President
80px-Lula_-_foto_oficial05012007_edit.jpg
Flag of the People’s Republic of China People’s Republic of China
Hu Jintao, President
97px-President_Hu_Jintao.jpg
Flag of India India
Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister
78px-Manmohansingh04052007.jpg
Flag of Mexico Mexico
Felipe Calderón, President
84px-Felipe_Calderon_H.jpg
Flag of South Africa South Africa
Jacob Zuma, President
91px-JacobZuma.jpg
Other leaders
Previous G8 summits have invited other world leaders to participate;[9] and representatives from a number of countries are anticipated at this summit,[11] including:
* Algeria.[11]
* Australia.[11]
* Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak.[12]
* Indonesia.[11]
* Libya, Leader and Guide to the Revolution, Muammar al-Gaddafi.[13]
* Nigeria, President Umaru Yar’Adua.[14]
* Senegal, President Abdoulaye Wade[14]
* South Korea.[11]
* Sweden (participating in its role as President of European Council).[15]
Italy’s Berlusconi announced that his country is prepared to host leaders of the G20 on the third day of talks. The proposed purpose would be to work towards developing new rules to stop the phenomenon of excessive securitization in the financial system and the use of derivatives that led to the current financial crisis.[11] British Prime Minister Brown supports this proposal.[16]
The Italian presidency of the G8 varies the summit’s working methods and the numbers of participants depending on the subject under consideration. This variable geometry structure diverges from the traditional G8 format. The involvement of different actors at different stages goes further than the idea of a simple G8+? . After an initial meeting of the historic core leaders of what is understood as the traditional G8), the agenda will broaden and the number of participants will be expanded accordingly. The leaders of G8 countries and G5 countries will be joined by a delegation from Egypt and a representative group of African countries.[17]
Some suggested that the G8’s annual meetings be broadened to include the heads of States or governments of the other countries represented in the governing bodies of the Bretton Woods institutions along with the heads of the main multilateral organisations. This would convert the G8 summits into an informal global governance council. [18]
Heads of international organizations
Leaders of major international organizations have also been invited to attend in the past; and this practice is expected to continue:
* African Union
* Commonwealth of Independent States
* International Atomic Energy Agency
* International Energy Agency
* United Nations
* UNESCO
* World Bank
* World Health Organization
* World Trade Organization
* European Union — Jose Manuel Barroso, President of EU Commission;[19]
Priorities
Traditionally, the host country of the G8 summit sets the agenda for negotiations, which take place primarily amongst multi-national civil servants in the weeks before the summit itself, leading to a joint declaration which all countries can agree to sign. This year, leaders of the G8 hoped to find common ground.
Issues
The summit was intended as a venue for resolving differences among its members. As a practical matter, the summit was also conceived as an opportunity for its members to give each other mutual encouragement in the face of difficult economic decisions.[6] From Italy’s perspective, the important thing is for the evolving G8 to avoid being to closely linked to serial emergency situations that there is no room for discussing broader issues.[17]
The Rambouillet summit in 1975 produced no easy answers to what was then the most serious recession since the 1930s; but the main themes of what is now considered the 1st G8 summit have persisted at the top of the the world’s agenda — avoiding protectionism, energy dependency and boosting growth.[20] However, the plausibly prescient British Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Peter Mandelson, speaking in 2009, expressed the opinion that however long it might persist as a grouping, as a steering committee for the global economy, the era of the G8 is over. Mandelson’s comment comes during a trip to Sao Paulo, Brazil.[21]
Schedule and Agenda
Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi explained that the schedule of meetings would be very much like that of the Hokkaido summit,
My opinion is that it is best to keep together countries which share the same principles and I suggested that in 2009 the first day of the summit should see just the G8 meet. On the second day the table can be expanded in the morning to include the G5, with the G8+5 also discussing Africa, while the G8 would then meet alone in the afternoon to draw their conclusions. This program was unanimously accepted and will be used at the G8 summit in Italy. [8]
A tentative agenda for the 35th G8 summit will include some issues which remain unresolved from previous summits. The process of finalizing the agenda moved forward when Berlusconi’s began contacting his G8 counterparts shortly after Italy took over the rotating presidency on January 1, 2009. At this point, the Italian premier’s office announced that Italy, as G8 host country, was planning to focus its initiatives on the economy, energy issues, sustainable development and climate change. Other issues on the agenda might encompass disarmament, the fight against terrorism and peace efforts in world hot spots.[22] Global health issues and food were also proposed as suitable topics for discussion at the summit. Global health was first introduced as an agenda item nine years ago at the 26th G8 summit in 2000.[23]
On the G8 agenda:
* Climate change.[24]
* Energy; Nuclear energy.[24]
* Dialogue with emerging countries[25]
* Achievement of millennium development goals[25]
* Negotiations on climate change[25]
* Development of Africa — 4 issues (alimentation, global health, water, education)[25] or education, water, food and agriculture, peace support.[24]
* Intellectual property.[24]
* Heiligendamm Process.[25]
* Outreach and expansion.[25]
Afghanistan pre-summit
The Italian government announced plans to its presidency of the G8 as a opportunity to help search for a regional diplomatic solution to the Afghan conflict. A pre-summit conference in June is proposed, bringing together the G8 and major states in the region including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey. Concurrently, Italy became the first NATO member in Europe to answer Pres. Obama’s call for reinforcements in Afghanistan, increasing Italian troops in the western province of Herat to 2,800 this year.[26]
Iran announced that it had received an invitation to attend the pre-summit;[27] and the Iranian government is considering whether to attend.[28] Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini and Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, discussed Iran’s prospective participation in the proposed pre-summit.[29]
Infrastructure Consortium for Africa
The Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA) was established at the 31st G8 summit at Gleneagles, Scotland in the United Kingdom in 2005. Since that time, the ICA’s annual meeting is traditionally hosted by the country holding the Presidency of the G8. The 2008 meeting was held in Tokyo in March 2008, and the 2009 meeting is planned for mid-March in Rome.[30]
Issues
Africa
The G8 leaders will discuss a range of issues relating to African development. Africa, which has been on the G8 agenda since 2000, has continues to lag behind on progress towards meeting Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).[31] In February 2009, Margaret Chan, head of the WHO, emphasized the importance of meeting the modest goals which were discussed and adopted in previous G8 summit discussions.[32]
Climate change
The G8 leaders will discuss a range of issues relating to climate in the context of a framework established at the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali, Indonesia.[31]
Citizens’ responses and authorities’ counter-responses
Protesters and demonstrations
Protest groups and other activists are expected to make a showing at the summit. Forward planning for this and future G8 summits began in advance of the 2008 Hokkaido summit. Activist organizations anticipate that early planning can result in greater networking effectiveness for G8 summits. The 2009 summit will likely attract significant focus for development campaigners in G8 countries and elsewhere in Europe including the regional GCAP Europe. Collective campaigning ahead of the European Parliament elections is also anticipated to generate momentum on global issues ahead of July 2009.[7]
In 2008, a number of commemorative events were organized to mark the seventh anniversary of demonstrations at the Genoa G8 summit; and the occasion included a call for people to participate in preparations for protests at the 2009 G8 summit.[33]
Not all demonstrations are expected to be focused in opposition to some issue. At the 2005 Scotland summit, for the first time the tens of thousands of people protesting outside were actually supporting the summit’s agenda of African aid;[4] and some activists traveled to Hokkaido for the same purpose.[34]
Citizen journalism
Citizens’ groups are expected to organize citizen journalism centers to provide independent media coverage of the G8 summit and the expected protests. In a sense, this article will evolve as the work product of something like citizen journalism, growing through serial draft texts as part of the first rough draft of history. [35]
Accomplishments
The G8 summit is an international event which is observed and reported by news media, but the G8’s continuing relevance after more than 30 years is somewhat unclear.[36] The G8 summit brings leaders together not so they can dream up quick fixes, but to talk and think about them together.[37]
Italy anticipates that the G8 of the future will serve a more significant strategic function supporting international organizations like the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO and the United Nations). The success of the L’Aquila summit will become measurable in the ways the G8 comes to resemble an initiative and pressure group working together to achieve global consensus.[17]
Security
In light of violent events at the Genoa summit, security will be one of the key indices for measuring the success of the L’Aquila summit. In a December 2008 press conference, President Berlusconi addressed this issue explicitly: Given the traumatic experience of Genoa … for us the problem of security is a real one. The previous government picked La Maddalena thinking, I believe, that this location would be ideal to avoid a repeat of what happened in Genoa. [38]
Italian authorities anticipate 25,000 people attending the summit, including 4,500 delegates, 4,500 journalists and a large number of security forces. [38]
Budget
Although the Italian Government insists the summit’s moving will help restore normality and provide much-needed funding to devastated L’Aquila, it remains to be seen how it can justify the costs involved with preparing the original site for its years-in-the-making facelift.
Part of the cost of creating the original facilities for the 2009 summit were merged in the costs of transforming the former U.S. Navy submarine base at Punta Rossa into a tourist and vacation destination.[39] This harbor has been an Italian naval base since 1887; but the area was bombed extensively in World War II; and some of work involves restoration as well as renewal. The Arsenale marittimo (maritime arsenal) has been converted to a new use as a conference center; and the military hospital has been reconfigured for use as a hotel. From the beginning of the conversion’s design stage, planning focused on potential uses which could be anticipated after the end of the G8 summit.[40]
At the end of the 2009 summit, La Maddalena’s facilities and amenities were to be made available for tourist accommodations, and the conference spaces will be available for booking. The harbor’s reconstructed quays, moorings and amenities will become a new Mediterranean port of call just north of the exclusive Costa Smeralda of eastern Sardinia.[40]
The infrastructure investment which resurfaces and extends the length of the nearby airport’s runways will also upgrade the facility for increased tourism traffic after the summit leaders have left the island.[41]
Business opportunity
The MS Fantasia.
For some, the G8 summit becomes a profit-generating event; as for example, the G8 Summit magazines which have been published under the auspices of the host nations for distribution to all attendees since 1998.[42]
The Italian government has made arrangements to hire the 133,500-ton MS Fantasia cruise ship to anchor off La Maddalena to provide supplemental accommodation during the island summit. The Fantasia is the flagship of the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), a privately-owned Italian shipping company. The ship is designed to carries up to 3,959 passengers and 1,325 crew.[43]
See also Energy portal
* International Panel on Climate Change
* United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Notes
1. ^ G8: ITALY WANTS TO MOVE SUMMIT TO L`AQUILA
2. ^ Smith, Diane. 2009 G8 Summit In La Maddalena, Italy, eFluxMedia (New York). June 15, 2007; 35th summit website: Italy in the G8.
3. ^ Zablonski, Lukasz and Philip Seaton. The Hokkaido Summit as a Springboard for Grassroots Initiatives: The ‘Peace, Reconciliation & Civil Society’ Symposium, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus (e-journal). ID No. 2973.
4. ^ a b Saunders, Doug. Weight of the world too heavy for G8 shoulders, Globe and Mail (Toronto). July 5, 2008.
5. ^ Reuters: Factbox: The Group of Eight: what is it? , July 3, 2008.
6. ^ a b Reinalda, Bob and Bertjan Verbeek. (1998). Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations, p. 205.
7. ^ a b Influencing Policy on International Development: G8, BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development). 2008.
8. ^ a b G8: Summit format to be maintained, ] ANSA (Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata – Società Cooperativa). July 8, 2008.
9. ^ a b c d Welch, David. Canada has an opportunity to remake world summitry, Toronto Star. July 18, 2008.
10. ^ Canseco, Mario. A Summit of Goodbyes, Angus Reid Global Monitor. July 14, 2008.
11. ^ a b c d e f Italy says to host G20 leaders at July G8 summit, Reuters. March 9, 2009.
12. ^ Marchetti, Silvia and Yang Aiguo. Italian G8 2009 presidency faces tough challenges, Xinghua News Agency. January 3, 2009.
13. ^ Libya’s Gadhafi Accepts Italian Invitation TO G8 Meeting. DowJones Business News. March 3, 2009.
14. ^ a b 35th summit website: Nigeria and Senegal Officially Invited to This Year’s G8 Summit, February 13, 2009.
15. ^ 35th summit website: Four Delegations Visit Summit Venue in Third Week in February, February 20, 2009.
16. ^ PM looks to G20 for economy deal, No. 10 Downing Street. February 20, 2009.
17. ^ a b c Frattini, Franco. Summits of the ‘big’ countries growing in importance but the G8 continues to play a strategic role, Il Messaggero. April 2, 2009.
18. ^ Camdessus, Michel. Africa: Open G8 to More Heads of Govt, Says Ex-IMF Chief, Africa Progress Panel (Geneva). March 27, 2009.
19. ^ EU Promises Food Crisis Aid of 1 Billion Euros Before G8 Summit, Deutsche Welle (Bonn). July 7, 2008.
20. ^ Stewart, Heather and Larry Elliott. Hopes fading for salvation at the summit, The Guardian (London). March 22, 2009.
21. ^ Norman, Laurence. UK Mandelson: Era Of The G8 Is Over, Wall Street Journal (New York). March 25, 2009.
22. ^ Mu Xuequan. Berlusconi, Merkel discuss financial crisis, gas row, Xinhua (Beijing). January 10, 2009.
23. ^ Kurokawa, Kyoshi et al. Italian G8 Summit: a critical juncture for global health, The Lancet (British Medical Association). Vol. 373, Iss. 9663 (14 February 2009), pp. 526-527.
24. ^ a b c d University of Toronto, G8 study group: 2009 summit agenda
25. ^ a b c d e f Global Forum on NGO Governance (ON-NGO): 2009 summit agenda
26. ^ Borger, Julian. Italy sends more troops to Afghanistan, The Guardian (London). February 6, 2009.
27. ^ Iran says received invitation to G8 meeting on Afghanistan, IranVNC (Iran Visual News Corps). February 23, 2009.
28. ^ Iran mulls attending G8 on Afghanistan, PressTV (Iran). February 23, 2009.
29. ^ Frattini: Iran may aid G8 Afghan effort, MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal digital network). February 23, 2009.
30. ^ Meeting to Discuss Crisis Impact in Africa’s Infrastructure Development, Afrol News. March 2, 2009.
31. ^ a b The Japan G8 in 2008: a New Year’s Resolution for delivery on the big questions? , ODI Blog, published December 20, 2007-12-20, accessed 2008-01-02
32. ^ Chan, Maraget. G8 has clout to shape development agenda, Business Daily Africa. February 24, 2009/
33. ^ G8 Genoa: Police receive low sentences, Gipfelsoli Infogroup. July 15, 2008.
34. ^ We’re not G8 protesters, says Nighy, Star (Sheffield). July 8, 2008.
35. ^ Braiker, Brian. History’s New First Draft, Newsweek (New York). July 8, 2008; Keyes, Ralph. The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and when, p. 107.
36. ^ Lee, Don. On eve of summit, G-8’s relevance is unclear, Los Angeles Times. July 6, 2008.
37. ^ Feldman, Adam. What’s Wrong With The G-8, Forbes (New York). July 7, 2008.
38. ^ a b Italy Hopes Island G8 Will Be Violence-Free, Reuters. December 4, 2008.
39. ^ Wingfield, Brian. U.S. to Shut Base in Italy That Aids Nuclear Subs, New York Times. November 25, 2005.
40. ^ a b 35th summit website: Local redevelopment
41. ^ Regione Autonoma della Sardegna: Il Governo blocca i fondi per le opere collaterali del G8. February 6, 2009.
42. ^ Prestige Media: official G8 Summit magazine
43. ^ Honeywell, John. All aboard for the G8 summit, The Mirror (London). March 22, 2009; Golden, Fran. G8 summit to be held on the MSC Fantasia, USA Today (New York). March 2009.
References
* Architetto Frau: Esperti Maddalena pronti a collaborare a lavori per vertice G8, Italy Global Nation (IGN). July 21, 2008.
* Bayne, Nicholas and Robert D. Putnam. (2000). Hanging in There: The G7 and G8 Summit in Maturity and Renewal. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing. 10-ISBN 0-754-61185-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-754-61185-1; OCLC 43186692
* Reinalda, Bob and Bertjan Verbeek. (1998). Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations. London: Routledge. 10-ISBN 0-415-16486-9; 13-ISBN 978-0-415-16486-3
External links
* Official 35th G8 website: La Maddalena summit, 2009; n.b., no official website is created for any G7 summit prior to 1995 — see the 21st G7 summit.
* University of Toronto: G8 Research Group, G8 Information Centre
o G8 2009, pre-summit developments
Preceded by
34th G8 summit 35th G8 summit
2009
Italy Succeeded by
36th G8 summit
v • d • e
G8 summits
1970s
1975 1st G6 summit Rambouillet A 1976 2nd G7 summit San Juan A 1977 3rd G7 summit London A 1978 4th G7 summit Bonn A 1979 5th G7 summit Tokyo
1980s
1980 6th G7 summit Venice A 1981 7th G7 summit Montebello A 1982 8th G7 summit Versailles A 1983 9th G7 summit Williamsburg A 1984 10th G7 summit London A 1985 11th G7 summit Bonn A 1986 12th G7 summit Tokyo A 1987 13th G7 summit Venice A 1988 14th G7 summit Toronto A 1989 15th G7 summit Grande Arche
1990s
1990 16th G7 summit Houston A 1991 17th G7 summit London A 1992 18th G7 summit Munich A 1993 19th G7 summit Tokyo A 1994 20th G7 summit Naples A 1995 21st G7 summit Halifax A 1996 22nd G7 summit Lyon A 1997 23rd G8 summit Denver A 1998 24th G8 summit Birmingham A 1999 25th G8 summit Cologne
2000s
2000 26th G8 summit Okinawa A 2001 27th G8 summit Genoa A 2002 28th G8 summit Kananaskis A 2003 29th G8 summit Évian-les-Bains A 2004 30th G8 summit Sea Island A 2005 31st G8 summit Gleneagles A 2006 32nd G8 summit Saint Petersburg A 2007 33rd G8 summit Heiligendamm A 2008 34th G8 summit Toyako A 2009 35th G8 summit L’Aquila
2010s
2010 36th G8 summit Huntsville A 2011 37th G8 summit
In this context, G6=G7=G8 — each are construed as evolving iterations of the same entity.
G8 ONLINE
an online university level course about the G8 and its annual summit
About the G8 Online Programs › » ›
Upcoming 2006 G8 Online Program
g8 live graphic
Student blog devoted to G8 summit
G8 Research Group will attend sessions, report
University of Toronto News Release >>>>
Previous G8 Online Programs (1999 + )
At the time of the annual G8 Summit, the G8 Research Group mounts programs in the host country and at the summit itself for documentation, media assistance, analysis, an academic symposium, a public policy conference, lectures, seminars, courses and related activities.
Before and during the summits, the G8 Information Centre assembles, verifies and posts documents on the meetings leading up to each summit, the available official documentation of all past summits and ministerial meetings (in all G8 languages), scholarly writings and policy analyses, research studies, scholarship information and links to related sites.
View all the Previous G8 Online Programs › » ›
Program Series Information
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Comments: g8@utoronto.ca
Previous G8 Online Programs
G8 Information Centre
Statement of the chair of the G8 foreign ministers meeting, Trieste, June 26, 2009
G8 finance ministers statement with framework, June 13, 2009
G8 development ministers: chair’s summary, 12, 2009
Third G20 summit to be held in Pittsburgh, September 24-25, 2009
G8 energy ministers statements, including joint statements, May 25, 2009
G8 foreign ministers issue statement on Sri Lanka, April 25, 2009
G8 environment ministers summary and biodiversity charter, April 24, 2009, Siracusa
G7 finance ministers and central bankers statement, April 24, 2009, Washington
Statement by U.S. treasury secretary Tim Geithner, April 24, 2009, Washington
2009 G8 summit venue may change, April 23, 2009
G8 agriculture ministers’ final declaration, April 18-20, 2009, Treviso, Italy
G8 labour ministers statements, including Brazil, Mexico, India, South Africa and Egypt, Rome, March 28-31, 2009
G20 leaders’ communiqué and annexes, London, April 2, 2009
Statement of Brazilian, Chinese, Indian, Russian finance ministers, March 14, 2009
G20 finance communiqué and annex, March 14, 2009
G7 finance ministers and central bankers statement, Rome, February 14, 2009
More on the G8
Search | Help | Have a question?
• What is the G8? • What does the G stand for? •
Français | Russkiy | Deutsch | Italiano | Japanese | Espagnol | Chinese | Portuguese
• Give a gift to the G8 Research Group •
See also G8 Live
Italian Summit, July 8-10, 2009
Prospective Agenda (G8 Research Group) | Road to L’Aquila Summit (formerly La Maddalena) | Official Italian website | G8 Live (G8 Research Group)
Summits, Meetings & Official Documents of G7 & G8
Summits: Communiqués, Statements, Documents and Delegations | Ministerial Meetings | Officials-Level Meetings | Issue Catalogues | Archives
Analysis, Reports & Conferences
Analytical and Compliance Studies | Conferences | Civil Society and Expanded Dialogue Unit | Data Sets | Fact Sheets | Oral History
G8-Related Publications
Bibliography of Scholary Works | Publications & Papers | Ashgate Series | Newsdesk | G8 Governance Working Papers
G8 Research Group
About Us | At Oxford University/LSE (UK) | At State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow) | Professional Advisory Council | Special Advisors | G8RG Analysts | G8RG Alumni | G7/G8 Research Library Collection | Global Governance and the G8 | Photos | Partner Institutions | News Releases | Annual Reports | MGIMO G8 Research Centre
G8 Teaching
G8 Online | Special Events | Teaching Program
Scholarships
The Catherwood Scholarship | Eligibility & Application Procedures | The Catherwood Scholars | The Robert H. Catherwood Lectures | Donate online
Links to Other G7/8-Relevant Sites
Governmental | International Organizations | Nongovernmental | Media
G20
G20 Information Centre | What is the G20? | Meetings & Official Documents | Plans and Prospects | Members | Analysis | Bibliography
G8-Affiliated Summits
Group of Five | Major Economies Meeting
G8 in the News
G8 Bulletin | G20 Bulletin | Financial Post
Sponsors
Munk Centre for International Studies | International Relations Program
Trinity College | EnviReform | University of Toronto Libraries | University of Toronto | Sponsorship | Donate online
Search the G8 Information Centre Help
G8 Information Centre
Top This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library and the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
Please send comments to: g8@utoronto.ca
A growing variety of factors, both global and regional in nature, challenge the stability of the world. International security cannot be ensured without tackling also phenomena such as terrorism, organized crime, fragile institutions and many sorts of illegal trafficking which spill their effects over national borders. Devising effective responses is made more complicated by the inter-relations among those phenomena and their frequent link with dire human conditions.
The current economic situation, food crisis, lack of energy security and climate change have further proven that the world is more interconnected than ever. For example, last year’s global food crisis plunged 100 million more people into extreme poverty and generated political instability in several countries. We can decrease the risk of social destabilization due to food insecurity through long-term partnerships with developing countries that stimulate rural development and economic growth. The global financial crisis increases the vulnerability of the world’s poor, and along with the other factors above, has the potential to magnify political tensions and foster social unrest.
The situation demands a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained commitment to mobilizing financial and diplomatic instruments that focus on our common interest in ensuring peace, resolving conflicts and creating conditions for sustainable development. We, the G8 Foreign Ministers, recognize our responsibility to stand together as one in countering old and new threats to peace and security and stress our commitment to transforming those challenges in opportunities for fostering effective international cooperation.
[back to top]
Non Proliferation, Disarmament Instruments and Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy
The proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery still constitute a major threat to international peace and security. We state our commitment to reinforce global non proliferation efforts by strengthening multilateral regimes. In that context we will strive for a successful outcome of the 2010 NPT Review Conference that strengthens the international nuclear non proliferation regime, promotes the international consensus underlying the Treaty and advances each of its three pillars. We are all committed to seeking a safer world for all and to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the goals of the NPT.
We salute, in particular, the decision by the United States and the Russian Federation to negotiate an agreement to replace the START. We call upon all nuclear-weapon states to undertake further steps in nuclear disarmament. We will intensify our efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We welcome the adoption by the Conference on Disarmament of a programme of work for its 2009 session. We strongly support the early commencement of negotiations on a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices that includes provisions for international verification. We expressed appreciation for the Conference “Overcoming Nuclear Dangers”, organised by Italy, the Nuclear Threat Initiative and The World Political Forum in Rome on 16-17 April 2009. We look forward to other G8 states’ initiatives aiming at fostering the implementation of the NPT.
We keep on monitoring regional challenges to the non proliferation regime with a view to ensuring full compliance by all States with their non proliferation undertakings and relevant UNSC Resolutions. We call upon all states to fully implement UNSC Resolution 1540/2004. We support the 1540 Committee’s work and encourage all states to participate actively in the comprehensive review on the implementation of the Resolution. We will join in reinforcing IAEA safeguards and addressing serious violations of the NPT and IAEA safeguards. We reiterate our commitment to take appropriate steps for further implementation of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.
We recognise the growing interest in peaceful uses of nuclear energy that should be carried out under the best safety, security and non proliferation conditions. We support the development of multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle and appreciate ongoing initiatives in this regard. We stress the key role played by IAEA in promoting the highest standards of non proliferation, safety and security, as well as in fostering cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We are ready to assist its member states in developing capacities that respect those standards.
[back to top]
Counter-terrorism
Terrorism continues to represent one of the greatest challenges to international peace, stability and security. We reiterate, in the strongest terms, our firm condemnation of this phenomenon in all its manifestations, particularly suicide bombing and kidnapping, and our commitment to counter violent extremism. All acts of terrorism – by whomever committed – are criminal, inhuman and unjustifiable, especially when they indiscriminately target and injure civilians.
We continue to be concerned about the growing links between terrorism and other criminal destabilizing factors – e.g. narco-trafficking, arms smuggling and corruption – which are of particular concern in states with fragile institutions. A proactive response is therefore required, including multifaceted short and long-term initiatives, within the framework provided by relevant UN conventions, protocols and Security Council Resolutions.
We reiterate our commitment to respecting and defending human rights obligations, which is fundamental to countering terrorism. The respect of international law and the promotion of the rule of law are irrenounceable pillars of our endeavour to eradicate terrorism.
Prevention and repression of terrorism financing are vital elements of any international strategy. We support the full implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations and of the United Nations sanctions regime. With special regard to the latter, we welcome the adoption of UNSC Resolutions 1730/2006 and 1822/2008, and call for their full implementation. Special attention should be paid to prevention of terrorism, i.e. to countering terrorist propaganda, incitement to terrorism and recruitment by terrorist organizations, as well as radicalization leading to violence. The use of cyber networks for terrorist purposes must be tackled as well.
The G8 continues to play a key role in supporting capacity building and technical assistance initiatives in third countries. We commit ourselves to further strengthen our coordination in this field and, to this end, we welcome the progressive reinforcement of the activities of the “Roma/Lyon Group” and of the Counter Terrorism Action Group (CTAG), as well as their further enhancement by “ad hoc” outreach initiatives with other relevant partners and the increased emphasis given to regional dimension in their work.
[back to top]
Trans-national Organised Crime
International stability is directly affected by a number of activities of Trans-national Organised Crime, such as illicit trafficking in firearms, persons and drugs, cash smuggling, money laundering and corruption. In this context we are particularly concerned about the increasing penetration of organised criminal groups into the legal economy. We call for the universalisation and the full implementation of all relevant UN conventions, in particular the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Palermo, 15 December 2000) and its protocols, and the United Nations Convention against Corruption that – through a financial asset oriented approach – effectively attack the ultimate interest of criminal organizations.
We commit ourselves to supporting capacity building and providing technical assistance for strengthening criminal justice systems in third countries. We are fully engaged in further enhancing coordination amongst ourselves, as much as our cooperation with relevant UN bodies, in particular with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
[back to top]
Peace-keeping / Peace-building
Noting the progress in implementing commitments made at successive G8 Summits to enhance global capacity for peace support operations, we look forward to our experts’ report to Leaders on major achievements in this regard. We will continue to pursue a comprehensive approach to peace support operations in crisis areas, in which security, stabilization, post-conflict reconstruction and rule of law go hand in hand. We welcome the UN Secretary General’s Report on Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict and encourage all relevant actors to consider its recommendations.
Recognizing the leading role of the United Nations in the field of peacekeeping, in particular the UN Peacebuilding Commission, we further commit to enhancing international coordination in order to ensure the best possible application of resources. We pledge to support capacity building programs worldwide, with special attention to the police and civilian components as an effective bridge on the road from crisis to stability. In that context we look in particular at Africa, where we shall continue to work with the African Union, sub-regional organizations and African States, in order to increase continental peacekeeping capacity and strengthen institutions, including through enhanced cooperation between Training Centres, in keeping with the principle of local ownership.
We stress as well the need for enhanced cooperation in sustaining the African Union-led peace support operations.
[back to top]
Piracy
We are seriously concerned about the increasing threat of piracy off the Gulf of Aden and the Eastern coast of Africa. We agree that dissuasion, prevention and suppression of acts of piracy are essential for maritime security and regional stability. We welcomed the ongoing international efforts to combat piracy through multilateral frameworks such as the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – in particular the Djibouti Code of Conduct (DCC) – as well as individual and collective maritime operations. We are committed to enhancing coordination and information sharing among those actors as well as initiatives to reinforce their inclusiveness. Aiming at preventing pirates from achieving their goals, we recognize among others the need to cooperate at international level in order to ensure the development of adequate legal frameworks to fight piracy and other maritime-related crimes, to explore ways of tracking and freezing pirates’ assets, and to consider measures of shipping self protection.
We also agree on the need of a strengthened international commitment to target the root causes of piracy, by helping countries in the region meet a number of destabilizing domestic and external challenges (such as poverty, ongoing conflicts, lawlessness and the lack of a strong central authority).
Affected States have a significant role in prosecuting, and enabling the prosecution of, suspected pirates, in keeping with internationally accepted legal and human rights standards and practice. In parallel, and consistent with the orientations expressed at the Seoul High Level Meeting on Piracy off the Coasts of Somalia of 9-10 June 2009, we note the importance of strengthening maritime and legal capacities of countries in the region. The G8 commended the leadership role of Kenya in the prosecution and detention of pirates. It is urgent to assist regional states in building their own capacity of adequately controlling their borders, coasts and territorial waters. In the framework of the CGPCS and in cooperation with IMO, we shall help personnel from concerned States to take maximum advantage of training opportunities provided by the International Maritime Safety, Security and Environment Academy (IMSSEA), already operating in Genoa under an agreement with IMO, and the Regional Training Centre to be created in Djibouti. We shall consider offering concerned States, on a bilateral basis, further opportunities for coast guard and law enforcement agencies formation and training.
We agreed to follow-up, also through meetings in the region at Ambassadors and experts level, in order to ensure that the G8 members provide maximum support to the work of the CGPCS and the implementation of its guidelines.
[back to top]
Iran
We are concerned about the aftermath of Iranian Presidential elections. We fully respect the sovereignty of Iran. At the same time, we deplore post-electoral violence, which led to the loss of lives of Iranian civilians. We express our solidarity with those who have suffered repression while peacefully demonstrating and urge Iran to respect fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, as ensured by the international treaties it has ratified. The crisis should be settled soon through democratic dialogue and peaceful means on the basis of the rule of law. We call on the Iranian government to guarantee that the will of the Iranian people is reflected in the electoral process.
We remain committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and support renewed efforts to that effect, such as the readiness of the U.S. to enter into direct talks and the invitation from China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States to Iran to restart negotiations, as well as the constructive involvement of other G8 partners in the process. We stress the need for unity of action on the basis of agreed policy. We sincerely hope that Iran will seize this opportunity to give diplomacy a chance to find a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue. At the same time we remain deeply concerned over proliferation risks posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. We recognise that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear programme, but that comes with the responsibility to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear activities. We strongly urge Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA and to comply with the relevant UNSC Resolutions.
Our meeting on the margin of the United Nations General Assembly opening week next September, will be an occasion for the G8 to take stock of the situation.
[back to top]
Afghanistan and Pakistan
We remain firmly committed to supporting the democratically elected governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as they confront grave security, humanitarian, counter narcotics, terrorism and economic challenges and will help them strengthening institutional capacity and increasing the effectiveness of government. We recognise the central role of the UN in ensuring the effectiveness and coherence of our efforts in Afghanistan. We look forward to our engagement in Trieste with our colleagues from Afghanistan and Pakistan and other regional actors. The outcomes of those discussions will be reported separately.
[back to top]
DPRK
We condemn in the strongest terms the nuclear test conducted on 25 May 2009 in violation of UNSC Resolution 1718/2006 and the launch using ballistic missile technology of 5 April 2009 which constitute a threat to regional peace and stability. We welcome the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1874/2009 and call upon the international community to fully and transparently implement their obligations pursuant to this Resolution, including the prevention of transfer of proliferation-related materials to and from the DPRK. We urge DPRK to fulfil its obligations under relevant UNSC Resolutions, to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes as well as ballistic missile programmes, which affect international security, and to return to full compliance with its international obligations. We remain committed to the goal of the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the full implementation of the 19 September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six Party Talks. We demand DPRK not to conduct further destabilizing actions and resume its participation to the Six Party Talks. We recognise the need for all participants to take measures as agreed in this format. We also urge DPRK’s prompt action to address the concerns of the international community on humanitarian matters, including the abduction issue.
[back to top]
Middle East
We reiterate the G8’s full support for the two-state solution, with the establishment of an independent, democratic, viable and contiguous Palestinian State living in peace with Israel and its other neighbours within secure and recognised borders. We salute our Leaders’ personal commitment for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We maintain our firm commitment to continue providing assistance to the Palestinian people and to strengthen the Palestinian democratic institutions. We call on all parties to re-enter direct negotiations on all standing issues consistent with the Roadmap, the relevant UNSC Resolutions and the Madrid principles. We also call on both parties to fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap, including a freeze in settlement activity (as well their “natural growth”) and an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism. We emphasized the urgency of a durable solution to the Gaza crisis through the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 1860/2009, including an end to arms smuggling and the immediate opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons. We remain committed to actively supporting the implementation of current and future peace agreements, and encourage others to do the same. Comprehensive peace in the Middle East requires a regional approach and we look forward to a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbours, also building upon the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. We support the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the Parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.
We continue to support a secure and united Iraq and pledge our ongoing support for free and inclusive national elections in the year ahead.
We congratulate the Lebanese people for carrying out a peaceful national election on 7 June 2009 and express our continued support for a sovereign and independent Lebanon. Myanmar
We are deeply concerned about the recent developments. A real process of dialogue and national reconciliation is needed, with the full participation of representatives of all political parties and ethnic groups, leading to transparent, fair and democratic multiparty elections. In this regard we call on the Government of Myanmar to release all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi whose continued detention would undermine the credibility of the elections planned for 2010.
We reaffirm our full support to the UN Secretary General’s good office mission and the initiatives aimed at fostering dialogue and democratic transition in Myanmar, demanding international community to do likewise. We call on the Government of Myanmar to fully cooperate with the UNSG Special Advisor, as well as with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar. We remain prepared to respond positively to substantive political progress undertaken by Myanmar.
Sri Lanka
While we welcome the end of the military conflict, we deeply regret the mass civilian casualties during the final phase of the fighting. We also recognise the steps already undertaken by the Government of Sri Lanka to address the humanitarian situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and its cooperation with relevant UN agencies, and encourage it to take further measures toward remaining significant challenges, including the civilian nature of the camps, freedom of movement and early return for IDPs. While we acknowledge security concerns, unhindered access for humanitarian aid agencies should be ensured by the Government of Sri Lanka. We welcome the recent agreement between the UN Secretary General and the Government of Sri Lanka underlining the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. We also welcome the government of Sri Lanka’s agreement to take measures to address those grievances. Further efforts are needed to ensure steady progress in the political process towards national reconciliation. Long-term security, post-conflict reconstruction and prosperity in the country can only be achieved through a process that addresses the legitimate concerns of all communities. Yemen
We recognise the strategic importance of enhancing international support to Yemen, whose integrity and effective control of the territory and borders are crucial for fighting against piracy and terrorism, as well as for security and stability in the Middle East, the Gulf and the Horn of Africa. We support a strengthened international cooperation aimed at helping the country in meeting domestic and external challenges. We will consider concerted and coordinated assistance, building upon the existing Consultative Group process. Increased integration of Yemen in regional cooperation would also be beneficial. BMENA
We reiterate full support to the G8 – BMENA Partnership as a crucial platform of dialogue and cooperation among Partner Governments, international organisations and the civil society in view of home-grown reforms in political, economic and social spheres. We look forward to the sixth “Forum for the Future”, scheduled next fall under the co-chairmanship of Italy and Morocco, in order to review the various initiatives undertaken since 2004 and strengthen the Partnership.
Africa
We shall work in order to create the conditions for transforming present problems in Africa into new opportunities for cooperation and development. We look forward to engaging African countries as partners on equal footing. We saluted recent efforts by African partners in strengthening governance in Africa, in building the capacities of continental and sub-regional organizations and in addressing situations of armed conflict. The G8 welcomed: recent free and fair elections in the region; the continuing implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism and other initiatives associated with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its integration with the activities of the African Union; and historically-high levels of regional economic growth in recent years.
These examples underscore the positive results that can be achieved when progressive national leadership is supported by sustained international engagement. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding these important successes, we expressed deep concern about the persistence of undemocratic transfers of power in Africa and commended the principled opposition of African partners, particularly the African Union, Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to these extra-constitutional changes of government. We call on the regimes which have taken power by such means to allow the restoration of constitutional order through free, fair and transparent elections as soon as possible.
We remain conscious of the political and economic challenges still confronting Africa – especially in the context of the food and economic crisis – and underscore the need for continued international cooperation in addressing them. We shall devote a special attention to protection of human rights, particularly on the most vulnerable such as children and women.
We remain seized of a number of specific situations.
Somalia – Sharing a deep concern over long-standing instability and the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, we reiterated our strong support to the Transitional Federal Government and its efforts aimed at securing an inclusive process of national reconciliation and sustainable peace. We recognise the need for enhanced and sustained humanitarian assistance and development efforts in Somalia, which we are willing to support. We welcomed the outcome of the International Conference in support of the Somali Security Institutions and the African Union Mission in Somalia, held in Brussels on 22-23 April 2009, and recognised the role played by the International Contact Group on Somalia, which lastly convened in Rome on 10-11 June 2009 with the participation of the Somali Prime Minister. We encourage African nations to join Burundi and Uganda in providing troops and support to AMISOM, while urging the whole international community to further engage in coordinated security and recovery efforts involving the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union and other relevant organizations, with a focus on building capacity for the TFG to deliver basic government services. In this regard, we are ready to consider financial assistance for training as well as other support for Somali security forces.
Sudan – We highlighted the importance of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, as the foundation for a sustainable peace, and welcomed the recent CPA Forum hosted by the United States in Washington on 23 June 2009. We call on the international community to work together to secure full implementation of the Agreement. We urge all parties to commit in good faith to the Darfur peace negotiations. We salute the efforts of the AU-UN Joint Chief Mediator and Qatar in this regard and encourage regional players to support the process. UNAMID’s role is crucial in enhancing security in Darfur and we emphasise the importance of its full and effective deployment. We call on the Government of Sudan to work effectively with humanitarian organizations in order to facilitate humanitarian access and assistance, and demand all parties to comply fully with their obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. We also call on all parties to abide by their obligations under relevant UNSC Resolutions. In particular, we reaffirm the obligation for Sudan to abide by UNSC Resolution 1593/2005, as lasting peace cannot be achieved without justice and reconciliation.
Great Lakes – We acknowledged that stability in the Democratic Republic of Congo is paramount to security in the Great Lakes Region and in all of Africa. We applauded the recent cooperation between the governments of the DRC and Rwanda, which has created new opportunities for a concerted and sustainable solution to the crisis in eastern DRC. We encourage renewed cooperation among the countries of the region, including in regional fora, on all political, security and economic aspects that are underlying causes of the crisis. We encourage the disarmament and reintegration of all organised armed groups as necessary steps towards a lasting solution. We express our grave concerns about the prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence in the DRC and the Great Lakes Region, and emphasise the need to effectively punish its perpetrators and to address its root causes. It is essential that all parties protect civilians and facilitate full, safe and unhindered access for humanitarian workers providing assistance.
Zimbabwe – Progress has been made towards national reconciliation. We support the people of Zimbabwe and the transition government as they work to bring peace, stability, prosperity and democracy back to their country. We encourage a full application of the Global Political Agreement, which can positively respond to concerns for rule of law, economic governance and land issues. Illegal and violent farm seizures, repression of human rights, and restrictions on media and journalists must cease. We will work with the transition government as it builds the institutions necessary for free and fair elections in a timely manner. We look forward to a meaningful dialogue with Zimbabwe, leading to a full normalization of political and economic relations, contingent upon progress towards full respect of human rights, democracy, and re-establishment of effective rule of law in the country.
West Africa – Several states of West Africa are emerging from conflict and political stabilization processes in some parts of the region remain fragile. Rule of law continues to be a primary challenge for a number of states concerned, as demonstrated by a series of recent non-constitutional transfers of power. As one consequence, we are witnessing an increase in worrying phenomena such as terrorism, maritime insecurity and illegal activities (trafficking in drugs, small weapons and human beings, and kidnappings for ransom). In that regard, we are particularly concerned about the actions of Al Qaida in the Sahel region, including hostage taking of foreigners, and totally condemn the recent assassination of a British hostage. Trans-national organised crime is also striving to infiltrate and weaken institutions. At the same time, we acknowledge the effectiveness of peace and security initiatives undertaken through ECOWAS. We encourage and will continue to support states of the region in their common effort to build the capacity to effectively meeting these challenges, including by addressing their root causes. Caucasus
We expressed our commitment for achieving regional stabilization. We state our support to efforts carried out to that effect with the active involvement of the UN, the OSCE and the EU. We encourage all actors in the region to work towards the peaceful settlement of unresolved conflicts and to support humanitarian aid programs.
We strongly encourage the development of regional cooperation. In this framework, we welcome the efforts of Armenia and Turkey to normalise their relations and the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs to seek a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Caucasus region has the potential to become an area of peace and prosperity for all populations.
Source: Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library and the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
Please send comments to: g8@utoronto.ca
This page was last updated June 26, 2009.
The New G8 Logo
The new G8 logo: From La Maddalena to L’Aquila – G8 Summit 2009
In the wake of the decision to move the Summit initially scheduled for La Maddalena to L’Aquila, as a token of consideration and support for the communities hit by the earthquake on 6 April, the turtles remain in the Summit’s new symbol as a reminder of this G8’s “migrant” nature, accompanied by the wording: “G8 Summit 2009 – From La Maddalena to L’Aquila”.
Past Summits:
* Hokkaido Toyako, July 7-9 2008 (Japan)
* Heiligendamm, June 6-8 2007 (Germany)
* St Petersburg, July 15-17 2006 (Russia)
* Gleneagles, July 6-8 2005 (United Kingdom) – Website currently not available
* Sea Island, June 8-10 2004 (United States) – Website currently not available
* Evian, June 1-3 2003 (France)
* Kananaskis, June 26-27 2002 (Canada)
* Genoa, July 20-22 2001 (Italy) – Website currently not available
Please note that it is 7 MB and may take a moment to load.
To order a printed copy, please click here.
mailto:g8@utoronto.ca?subject=Please send me a copy of The G8 2009: From La Maddalena to L’Aquila
Contents Forewords
* De La Maddalena a L’Aquila (in Italian and English)
Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister, Italy
* For better global governance
Taro Aso, prime minister, Japan
* The 2010 Muskoka Summit
Stephen Harper, prime minister, Canada
* The G8: complementing the G20
Lee Myung-bak, president, Korea
Introduction
* Prospects for the 2009 L’Aquila G8 Summit
John Kirton, director, G8 Research Group
From G20 to G8: joint action
* Recovery and Reform
Daniel M. Price, partner at Sidley Austin LLP and former assistant to the US president for international economic affairs and former G8 and G20 sherpa
Economics, finance and trade
* Call to action
Angel Gurrìa, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Economic Development
* Restoring Growth
Robert Fauver, former US under secretary of state for economic affairs and former G7 sherpa * Mapping the route to recovery
Paola Subacchi, Chatham House
* Regulation and Reform
Jim O’Neill, Goldman Sachs
* Under pressure
Domenico Lombardi, Oxford Institute for Economic Policy and the Brookings Institution
* The common purse
Pietro Alessandrini, Università Politecnica della Marche, and Michele Fratianni, Indiana University and Università Politecnica della Marche
* Facing up to respondibility
Kimon Valaskakis, New School of Athens
Environment and climate change
* The environment-health axis
Achim Steiner, United Nations and United Nations Environment Programme
* Securing the future
Tobias Feakin, National Security and Resilience, Royal United Services Institute
* Trading our way out of climate change
Henry Derwent, International Emissions Trading Association
* Toward Copenhagen
Bjorn Stigson, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
* On thin ice
Christopher Wright, Grantham Institute on Climate Change, London School of Econonmics, and Centre for Development and Environment, University of Oslo
Energy
* The energy challenge
Nobuo Tanaka, International Energy Agency
* Renewing efforts
Sergey Koblov and Victoria Panova, International Sustainable Energy Development Centre
Health
* The global health challenge
Margaret Chan, World Health Organization
* Finding the cure
Michel Kazatchkine, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
* Delivering on promises?
* James Orbinski, St. Michael’s Hospital, and Jenilee M. Guebert, Program on Global Health Governance, University of Toronto
Water, food and agriculture
* Out of our depth
Loïc Fauchon, World Water Council
* A roadmap for global food security
Jacques Diouf, Food and Agriculture Organization
* A green revolution
Kanayo f. Nwanze, International Fund for Agriculture and Development
* The food and energy challenge
C. Ford Runge, University of Minnesota
Development, investment and emerging economies
* The war on want
Kamalesh Sharma, Commonwealthsecretary general
* Opportunity out of crisis
Lars H. Thunell, International Finance Corporation
* Asia’s paradox
Haruhiko Kuroda, Assian Development Bank
* Rediscovering the Americas
Alicia Bárcena, United Nationsl Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
* The hour of need
Donald Kaberuka, African Development Bank
* Restructuring development
Diéry Seck, Centre for Research on Political Economy
* Looking east
Hisham El-Sherif, Nile Capital
IT and telecommunications
* Only connect
Hamadoun Touré, International Telecommunications Union
* A better Web for a better society
Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Bratt and Daniel Dardailler, World Wide Web Foundation and World Wide Web Consortium
Global governance and the growing G8
* Down but not out
Andrew F. Cooper, The Centre for International Governance Innovation
* A civil society
Peter I. Hajnal and Jenilee M. Guebert, G8 Research Group
Appendices
* Profiles
* G8 Research Group’s 2008 Interim Compliance Report
G8 Centre
Top This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library and the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
Please send comments to: g8@utoronto.ca
This page was last updated June 24, 2009.
2009. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated.
G8 calls for immediate halt to Iran violence
26 June 2009
* Author: Carole Landry
* Source: Agence France Presse
The Group of Eight called on Iran Friday to immediately halt post-election violence but refrained from calling into question the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s re-election.
The leading powers were divided over how to respond to the crisis in Iran with Russia warning against isolating Tehran with a toughly-worded condemnation that risked derailing talks on its nuclear drive. (more…)
****
The Guardia di Finanza School in L’Aquila, Stronghold of the Institutions and the G8
The entrance of the non-Commissioned Officers School in Coppito, L’Aquila The Italian Government has decided to move the G8 Summit venue from La Maddalena to L’Aquila, the city symbolising the earthquake that hit Abruzzo on 6 April.
The Guardia di Finanza Non-Commissioned Officers’ School is the venue for an austere G8 increasingly alive to the issues of natural calamity-related risk prevention, aversion and management.
The School complex, already dubbed “Guardia di Finanza City” is located on the outskirts of L’Aquila, in the Coppito district, and since 6 April, after verifying its safety, it houses the Civil Protection Department’s Di.coma.c, or Direzione di Comando e Controllo of the Civil Protection System, which is coordinating emergency work in the wake of the earthquake. Since mid-April, the college also houses the institutions that lost their premises on account of the earthquake.
The college takes in 3,500 non-Commissioned officer cadets every two years. Building began in 1986, the first lot, comprising about 700,000 cubic metres, being completed over the subsequent six years.
The college’s perimeter wall, which is over 2 km long, encloses about 45 hectares of hilly ground, where the headquarters offices, the parade ground, the auditorium, the sports facilities, the cadets’ quarters and the multi-purpose unit are laid out. The classrooms and mess are located behind the cadets’ quarters, linked by raised walkways with arched glass roofs. The upper part is home to the permanent staff’s quarters, the infirmary, the vehicle fleet and the technology control rooms. Last but not least, the top of the hill features a helipad equipped for both day-and night-time take-off and landing.
Other facilities for the college’s exclusive use are located outside the perimeter wall, as is a car park capable of accommodating a thousand or so vehicles in an area of about 4,000 square metres.
Since the Cabinet meeting held on 23 April, which set the seal on the G8 Summit’s move right there in the college command room, officials and technical experts have been at work to ensure that the Guardia di Finanza campus will be able to play host to the foreign delegations from 8 to 10 July.
Bank failure list tops 45
The FDIC says banks in Georgia, Minnesota and California were shuttered by state regulators.
By Ben Rooney, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: June 26, 2009: 10:38 PM ET
Map
Where the banks are failing
Bank failures and foreclosures keep mounting
View map
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Local banks in Georgia, Minnesota and California were closed Friday by state regulators, bringing the total number of failed banks this year to 45, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The financial crisis has taken a heavy toll on small banks across the nation as losses in the housing market mount and unemployment dents household wealth. Analysts expect the trend to continue even as larger banks stabilize and the overall economy begins to recover.
Community Bank of West Georgia, which operated one branch in Villa Rica and another in Kennesaw, had total assets of $199.4 million and total deposits of $182.5 million, according to the FDIC.
The failed bank had roughly $1.1 million in deposits that exceeded the FDIC’s $250,000 insurance limit for individual accounts. However, this amount is expected to change as the agency obtains more information from uninsured customers, the FDIC said.
The FDIC will mail checks to insured depositors of the failed bank on Monday morning. Direct deposits from the federal government, such as Social Security and Veterans’ payments, will be transferred to United Community Bank of Blairsville, Ga.
Georgia regulators also shuttered the four branches of Neighborhood Community Bank, which is based in Newnan.
The FDIC said CharterBank of West Point will assume all of the failed bank’s $191.3 million deposits and the majority of its $221.6 million assets.
So far this year, nine banks in Georgia have failed.
In Minnesota, Horizon Bank of Pine City was closed and will be taken over by Stearns Bank, NA of St. Cloud. It was the first bank to fail in the Gopher State this year.
The failed bank, which operated two locations, had total assets of $87.6 million and total deposits of about $69.4 million. Stearns Bank paid a premium for all of Horizon Bank’s deposits and agreed to acquire $84.4 million of its assets. The remaining assets will be sold by the FDIC later.
Meanwhile, the sole branch of Irvine, Calif.-based MetroPacific Bank was closed Friday and Sunwest Bank, of Tustin, Calif., agreed to assume all of its non-brokered deposits.
MetroPacific had total deposits of approximately $73 million. Sunwest Bank will purchase nearly all of the failed bank’s $80 million worth of assets, the FDIC said.
The FDIC said it would pay about $6 million directly to brokers for deposits held in MetroPacific brokered accounts.
Later Friday, the FDIC said Mirae Bank of Los Angeles was closed. The bank’s five offices will reopen Monday as branches of Wilshire State Bank. Mirae Bank had total assets of $456 million and total deposits of approximately $362 million.
Wilshire State Bank will buy about $449 million of the failed bank’s assets. The FDIC will hold the remaining assets to dispose of later.
California has had six banks fail so far this year.
The FDIC said it entered a loss-share agreement with the acquiring banks for a portion of the failed banks’ assets. The agreement is intended to maximize returns on the assets and minimize disruptions for loan customers, the FDIC said.
The total cost of Friday’s bank failures to the FDIC is $264.2 million, bringing the total for this year to $11.94 billion. That compares with $17.6 billion in all of 2008.
The number of bank failures so far this year has already exceeded last year’s total of 25, with an average of 7 failures per month.
Over the next 5 years, the FDIC expects roughly $70 billion in losses due to the failures of insured institutions.
The FDIC, which is funded primarily by fees paid by banks, insures individual deposits up to $250,000. The amount was increased from $100,000 late last year in response to concerns about the stability of the nation’s banks. To top of page
First Published: June 26, 2009: 6:18 PM ET
My note –
I have a lot of paintings that I’ve done over the years. If I went to a bank or investor and asked to use them as collateral for a loan – what value would they give them? Do you really think it would be $3,000 – $4,000 dollars a piece when I might only get $25 dollars each for them if I’m lucky and catch the right person to talk them into it? That banker would tell me that as collateral, they are worthless.
And, if I had a recent track record of receiving $25 each, then that is the value that a banker, corporate investment manager, investor, “financial engineer” or business person would give them as a value, not what my costs were to create them, and not what they would be worth if the market was more favorable and not what they would be worth in comparison to other items selling in the marketplace.
It wouldn’t take a banker or accountant five minutes to say that to me and refuse a loan to me for a business based on those paintings or anything else. So, why do they get to value things as they see fit and why would our government let them do it after all the harms that have been caused by doing it that way?
– cricketdiane, 04-02-09
**
Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council
MEMBERS AS OF JANUARY 2009
Mr. Dennis H. Chookaszian
Chairman Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council
Ms. Joan L. Amble
Executive Vice President and Corporate Comptroller American Express Company
Dr. Ray Ball
Sidney Davidson Professor of Accounting Graduate School of Business
The University of Chicago
Mr. David Bianco
Managing Director and Head of U.S. Equity Strategy,
Valuation and Accounting UBS Investment Research
Mr. Mark M. Bielstein
Partner KPMG LLP
Dr. James L. Bothwell
Founder and President Financial Market Strategies LLC
Mr. Peter Bridgman
Senior Vice President and Controller PepsiCo, Inc.
Mr. Robert L. Bunting
Chair International Services Group Moss Adams LLP
Mr. Curtis L. Buser
Managing Director and Chief Accounting Officer The Carlyle Group
Dr. Carolyn M. Callahan
Professor
Doris M. Cook Chair in Accounting Sam Walton School of Business
University of Arkansas-Fayetteville
Mr. Michael P. Cangemi
Director of Various Boards and President & Chief Executive Officer Cangemi Company LLC
Mr. William G. Clark
Director State of New Jersey
Division of Investment
Mr. Vincent P. Colman
U.S. National Office Professional Practice Leader PricewaterhouseCoopers
Mr. Stephen J. Cosgrove
Vice President, Corporate Controller Johnson & Johnson
Mr. Timothy J. Curt
Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer Warburg Pincus LLC
Mr. Jerry M. de St. Paer
Executive Chairman GNAIE—Group of North American Insurance Enterprises
Mr. Richard K. Dinkel
Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer Koch Industries, Inc.
Mr. Lewis Dulitz
Vice President of Accounting Policies & Research Covidien
Mr. Ralph C. Ferrara
Managing Partner Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
Mr. Leonard F. Griehs
Vice President, Investor Relations Campbell Soup Company
Ms. Marie N. Hollein
President and Chief Executive Officer Financial Executives Institute
Mr. Gary R. Kabureck
Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer Xerox Corporation
Dr. Mark H. Lang
Thomas W. Hudson, Jr./Deloitte and Touche L.L.P.
Distinguished Professor Kenan-Flagler Business School
University of North Carolina
Mr. Richard D. Levy
Executive Vice President & Controller Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Mr. Feilong Li
Controller CNOOC Limited
Mr. John B. Morse, Jr.
Vice President—Finance, Chief Financial Officer The Washington Post Company
Mr. George Muñoz
Principal Muñoz Investment Banking Group
Mr. Joel S. Osnoss
Partner
Global IFRS and Offering Services Deloitte & Touche LLP
Mr. Lawrence K. Probus
Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President World Vision U.S.
Mr. Steven A. Rogers
President and Chief Administrative Officer Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Mr. David E. Runkle
Director of Quantitative Research Trilogy Global Advisors
Ms. Arleen R. Thomas
Senior Vice President, Member Competency and Development American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Mr. Randy J. Vest
Vice President and Controller; Chief Accounting Officer Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Dr. Terry D. Warfield
Robert and Monica Beyer Professor of Accounting Wisconsin School of Business
Ms. Shannon S. Warren
Managing Director,
Corporate Accounting Policies Group JP Morgan Chase
Mr. William Widdowson
Head Group Accounting Policy UBS AG
Mr. Brent A. Woodford
Senior Vice President, Planning and Control The Walt Disney Company
Mr. Jed Wrigley
Director & Fund Manager Fidelity International Ltd.
Mr. William L. Yeates
National Director of Audit and Accounting Hein & Associates LLP
The Committee consists of a chair plus twelve members and includes four CPA practitioners, four financial statement preparers, and four users of private company financial statements. The founding members of the PCFRC are:
Judith H. O’Dell, Chair
President O’Dell Valuation Consulting, LLC
Charles Bramley
Partner Briggs Bunting & Dougherty
Daryl Buck
Vice President and CFO Reasor’s, Inc
John R. Burzenski
President Burzenski & Company
Michael Cain
Senior Executive Vice President Frost Bank
Thomas J. Groskopf
Director Barnes Dennig
Mary Ann Lawrence
Senior Vice President Key Corporation
David Lomax
Area Underwriting Manager Liberty Mutual Surety
Jerry Murphy
CFO Todd and Sargent Inc
Chris A. Rogers
Vice President of Finance and Administration Infragistics, Inc.
Steven A. Shelton
Partner Way, Ray, Shelton and Company
James K. Smith
Vice President and CFO Phonon Corporation
*** Financial Crisis Advisory Group (FCAG) CO-CHAIRS
Harvey J. Goldschmid
Former Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
United States
Hans Hoogervorst
Chairman, AFM (the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets)
Europe MEMBERS
John Bogle Founder, Vanguard
United States
Jerry Corrigan Goldman Sachs and Former President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank
United States
Fermin del Valle Former President, International Federations of Accountants
Argentina
Jane Diplock Chairman, International Organization of Securities CommissionsExecutive Committee
New Zealand
Raudline Etienne Chief Investment Officer, New York State Common Retirement Fund
United States
Stephen Haddrill Director General, Association of British Insurers
United Kingdom
Toru Hashimoto Former Chairman, Deutsche Securities Limited
Japan
Nobuo Inaba Former Executive Director, Bank of Japan
Japan
Gene Ludwig Former Comptroller of the Currency
United States
Yezdi Malegam Board Member, National Reserve Bank of India
India
Klaus-Peter Müller Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Commerzbank
Germany
Don Nicolaisen Former Chief Accountant, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
United States
Wiseman Nkuhlu Chairman of the Audit Committee, AngloGold Ashanti; Former Economic Advisor to the President of the Republic of South Africa
South Africa
Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa Former Finance Minister
Italy
Lucas Papademos Vice-President, European Central Bank
Europe
Michel Prada Former Chairman, Autorité des marchés financiers
France OBSERVERS:
Basel Committee of Banking Supervisors
Committee of European Securities Regulators
Financial Stability Forum
International Association of Insurance Supervisors
Japan Financial Services Agency
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Nelson Carvalho, IASB Standards Advisory Council Chairman, Brazil
Dennis Chookaszian, Chairman, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, United States
In September of 2005, the FASB announced the launch of its Investor Task Force (ITF). The ITF is an advisory resource that provides the Board with sector specific insight and expertise from the professional investment community on relevant accounting issues.
The ITF is comprised of the nation’s largest institutional asset managers, each of which provides the FASB with an institutional contact point—typically the Director of Research—who identifies industry specific analysts at their respective firms that match the sector requirements of each standard setting initiative.
For example, if an issue on the FASB’s agenda relates to the oil industry, the ITF, as appropriate, would appoint an oil and gas analyst to advise the Board and staff from at least one of the ITF member firms.
ITF Member Firms and their affiliates maintain more than $3 trillion in assets under management. They include:
*** Valuation Resource Group
Last Updated: March 16, 2009 (Updated sections are indicated with an asterisk *)
The staff has prepared this summary of Board decisions for information purposes only. Those Board decisions are tentative and do not change current accounting. Official positions of the FASB are determined only after extensive due process and deliberations.
*Objective
*Issues Discussed to Date
*Valuation Resource Group Members
*History and Background
*Contact Information
*Objective
In step with its mission to improve and enhance the quality, consistency, and comparability of financial statements, the FASB continues to assess whether and to what extent additional and more specific valuation guidance is needed for financial reporting purposes beyond the guidance provided in FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements. The Board seeks to solicit the views of its constituents through the formation of a resource group tasked with assisting the Board in matters involving valuation for financial reporting purposes.
The Valuation Resource Group (VRG) will provide the FASB staff with information on the existing implementation issues surrounding fair value measurements used for financial statement reporting purposes and the alternative viewpoints associated with those implementation issues. The VRG’s meetings are closed to the public and minutes are not distributed. The meetings are closed since this group does not make any authoritative decisions. Any authoritative decisions are subject to the FASB’s normal open due process, including open deliberation by the Board.
The next meeting of the VRG is scheduled for April 7, 2009. The VRG will hold a session with the FASB Board from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. that is open to the public. Constituents also may listen to that session via webcast.
*Issues Discussed to Date
The issues discussed at the February 5, 2009 meeting include:
The SEC Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting
Proposed FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 157-c, Measuring Liabilities under Statement No. 157
The AICPA Draft Issues Paper, FASB Statement No. 157 Valuation Considerations for Interests in Alternative Investments
Goodwill Impairment Considerations
The issues discussed at the September 23, 2008 meeting include:
The IASB Expert Advisory Panel White Paper: “Measuring and disclosing the fair value of financial instruments in markets that are no longer active”
Fair Value Disclosures
Observable vs. Unobservable Inputs
Fair Value Measurement of Liabilities under FAS 157
Allocation of In-Use Valuation to Individual Unit of Account
rued Liabilities
Identification and Allocation of Market Participant Synergies
Fair Value of a Noncontrolling Interest and a Previously Held Equity Interest
The issues discussed at the May 8, 2008 meeting include:
Observable vs. Unobservable Fair Value Measurements in the Current Credit Environment
Determining Whether a Discount should be Applied for a Restriction on Sale
Employee Benefit Plans
Contingent Liabilities
The issues discussed at the February 1, 2008 meeting include:
Accounting for assets that the acquirer does not intend to use or intends to use in a way other than its highest and best use
Overlapping customer relationships
Valuation of intangible assets using current replacement cost
Meaning of legally permissible in assessing highest and best use
Allocation of portfolio based credit adjustments for hedge effectiveness testing
The issues discussed at the November 9, 2007 meeting include:
Deferral of the effective date of FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurement
Development of market participant assumptions and use of an entity’s own data (similar to issue discussed at October 1, 2007 meeting)
Unit of valuation and exit markets, whether unit of valuation can be more disaggregated than the unit of account (similar to issue discussed at October 1, 2007 meeting)
Measurement of liabilities
Applicability of Statement 157 to plan assets of pensions and other postretirement benefit plans (similar to issue discussed at October 1, 2007 meeting)
Use of NAV to measure investments in fund of fund or certain investments with restrictions (similar to issue discussed at October 1, 2007 meeting)
Determining the fair value of a liability with a third-party guarantee
Highest and best use – land example
Definition of significant in determining the level in the fair value hierarchy
Accounting for Transaction Costs in Determining the Fair Value of an Investment
The issues discussed at the October 1, 2007 meeting include:
Determining the fair value of an asset in which the entity intends to transform the asset from its current form into a different form upon sale (such as whether to value a mortgage loan in the whole loan market vs. the securitization market)
Definition of an active market
Determination of the principal market when the majority of an entity’s trading activity occurs in a different market than where the majority of market participants’ trading occurs.
Highest and Best Use: Accounting for an asset that an entity does not intend to use or intends to use defensively
Determination of market participants (such as assets or entities acquired in an auction)
Assets and liabilities without markets
Pension plan disclosures
Use of net asset value to measure certain investments, such as in private equity.
The FASB staff will evaluate which, if any, of these issues to present to the Board for their consideration to add to its technical agenda. Based on the discussions and information provided by the VRG, the FASB has added several projects to its agenda to provide additional guidance to constituents. These projects address:
Determining when a market for an asset or a liability is active or inactive;
Determining when a transaction is distressed;
Applying fair value to interests in alternative investments, such as hedge funds and private equity funds; and,
Improving disclosures about fair value measurements will consider requiring additional disclosures on such matters as sensitivities of measurements to key inputs and transfers of items between the fair value measurement levels.
*Valuation Resource Group Members
Don Charles (accounting/valuation)
Ernst & Young
Frank Ciccotto
Standard and Poor’s
Brenna Wist (accounting/valuation)
KPMG
Greg Forsythe (accounting/valuation)
Deloitte
Andreas Ohl (accounting/valuation)
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Anita Ford (accounting/valuation)
Clifton Gunderson
Jolene Hart (accounting/valuation)
McGladry & Pullen
Jerry Mehm (valuation)
American Appraisal
Paul Barnes (valuation)
Duff & Phelps
Michael DeLuke (valuation)
Houlihan , Lokey, Howard & Zukin
Michael Mard (valuation)
The Financial Valuation Group
Chris Thorne (professional standard setting)
International Valuation Standards Committee
Carla Glass (valuation)
Hill, Schwartz, Spilker, Keller LLC
Amy Ripepi (accounting specialist)
Financial Reporting Advisors
Greg Ramsey (preparer)
Fannie Mae
Gina Weaver (preparer)
Pfizer
David Larsen (preparer – private equity)
Duff & Phelps
Gordon Goodman (preparer)
Occidental Petroleum
Wally Enman (user)
Moodys Investors Service
Shelley Luisi (observer)
SEC
Greg Scates (observer)
PCAOB
Hillary Eastman (observer)
IASB
Laurie Fitzpatrick Priest (observer)
Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Dan Noll (observer)
AICPA
*History and Background
In January 2007, the FASB issued an Invitation to Comment seeking views from constituents on (a) the need, if any, for valuation guidance related to the use of fair value measurements in financial reporting, (b) who should be involved in developing any such valuation guidance, and (c) the process and form of any such guidance-setting activities. Over 80 comment letters were received and posted to the FASB website. Additionally, the Board held a Public Roundtable on April 30, 2007 to enable constituents to elaborate on and discuss the issues raised in the Invitation to Comment. The Board issued a press release on June 21, 2007 announcing the formation of a resource group to address issues relating to valuation for financial reporting. The resource group has met on October 1, 2007, November 9, 2007, February 1, 2008, May 8, 2008, September 23, 2008, and February 5, 2009 to discuss issues surrounding the implementation of FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements.
Contact Information
Kristofer Anderson
Valuation Fellow
keanderson@fasb.org
Meghan Clark
Postgraduate Technical Assistant
mmclark@fasb.org
So, while Sarkozy and Merkel are insisting on intelligent redesign of the regulations and transparency that will fix this mess which was directly caused by the lack of them, our Congressional and business leaders have succeeded in making a mockery of them and the entire G20 efforts by having the mark-to-market rule changed back to fantasy accounting.
On This Morning – 04-02-09, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, (FASB) will be changing the mark-to-market rule into something that no longer resembles reality once again by allowing bankers and others to use their own “significant judgment” in determining values for accounting purposes.
***
Mark-to-Market Accounting To be changed back to fantasy accounting or mark to make believe – Thursday, April 2, 2009 – while G20 meets the Financial Accounting Standards Board are stabbing them in the back by irresponsible current actions
***
****
Facts about FASB
Board Members
Robert H. Herz
Chairman
Robert H. Herz was appointed chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), effective July 1, 2002, and was reappointed to a second term effective July 1, 2007. Previously, he was a senior partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Prior to joining the FASB, Mr. Herz was PricewaterhouseCoopers North America Theater Leader of Professional, Technical, Risk & Quality and a member of the firm’s Global and U.S. Boards. He also served as a part-time member of the International Accounting Standards Board. Mr. Herz is both a certified public accountant and a chartered accountant.
Mr. Herz joined Price Waterhouse in 1974 upon graduating from the University of Manchester in England with a B.A. degree in economics. He later joined Coopers & Lybrand becoming its senior technical partner in 1996 and assumed a similar position with the merged firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1998.
During his distinguished career, Mr. Herz has authored numerous publications on a variety of accounting, auditing, and business subjects. Included among those contributions is the recent book, The Value Reporting Revolution: Moving Beyond the Earnings Game, which he co-authored.
Among Mr. Herz’s other activities, he chaired the AICPA SEC Regulations Committee and the Transnational Auditors Committee of the International Federation of Accountants, and served as a member of the Emerging Issues Task Force, the FASB Financial Instruments Task Force, the American Accounting Association’s Financial Accounting Standards Committee, and the SEC Practice Section Executive Committee of the AICPA.
FASB Chairman Robert H. Herz Testifies on Mark-to-Market Accounting
Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:19am EDT
NORWALK, Conn.–(Business Wire)–
Robert H. Herz, Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), testified about mark to market accounting today before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Herz appeared at a hearing convened by Congressman and Committee Chairman Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) on Mark-to-Market Accounting: Practices and Implications.
Many investors have made it clear that, in their view, fair value accounting
allows companies to report amounts that are more relevant, timely, and
comparable than amounts that would be reported under alternative accounting approaches, even during extreme market conditions, said Chairman Herz.
Herz underscored the importance of neutral, independent standard setting to
capital market investors, and noted that after gathering extensive input about
fair value from a diversity of capital market participants, the prevailing view
urged the FASB not to suspend or weaken mark to market accounting rules.
While bending the rules to favor a particular outcome may seem attractive to some in the short run, in the long run, a biased accounting standard is harmful to investors, creditors and the U.S. economy, said Herz.
Addressing misconceptions that mark to market is a broadly applied rule, Herz explained that so called mark to market accounting generally only applies to trading accounts and derivatives that don’t qualify as hedges.
Additionally, Herz clarified that the use of fair value for measurement depends on both the nature of a financial asset and its intended use by an institution. Herz added that current financial reporting in the U.S. and elsewhere across the world included the use of both fair value and historical cost.
In response to the current challenging market conditions and feedback from a
wide array of investors and constituents-including the SEC– the FASB recently announced projects intended to improve the application guidance used to determine fair values as well as improving disclosures in financial reports. (http://www.fasb.org/news/nr021809.shtml ). Earlier in the crisis, the FASB and SEC jointly issued new guidance on the application of fair value in illiquid markets. (http://www.fasb.org/news/2008-FairValue.pdf )
The fact that fair value measures have been difficult to determine for some illiquid instruments is not a cause of current problems but rather a symptom of the many problems that have contributed to the global crisis– including lax and fraudulent lending, excess leverage, the creation of complex and risky investments through securitization and derivatives, the global distribution of such investments across rapidly growing unregulated and opaque markets lacking a proper infrastructure for clearing mechanisms and price discovery, faulty ratings, and the absence of appropriate risk management and valuation processes at many financial institutions, Herz said.
Given the challenging economic environment, Herz underscored the FASB`s
commitment to continue working actively with regulators and constituents to
provide guidance on reporting issues emanating from the financial crisis and
continue its project with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to improve, simplify and converge the accounting standards for financial instruments .
The full text of Chairman Herz`s testimony is located at http://www.fasb.org.
About the Financial Accounting Standards Board
Since 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board has been the designated organization in the private sector for establishing standards of financial accounting and reporting. Those standards govern the preparation of financial reports and are officially recognized as authoritative by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
Such standards are essential to the efficient functioning of the economy because investors, creditors, auditors, and others rely on credible, transparent, and comparable financial information.
For more information about the FASB, visit our
website at www.fasb.org.
***
Robert H. Herz, Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB),
testified about mark to market accounting today before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Herz appeared at a hearing convened by Congressman and Committee Chairman Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) on Mark-to-Market Accounting: Practices and Implications.
Paul E. Kanjorski has been a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Pennsylvania’s 11th Congressional district, since 1985. The district includes Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and most of the Poconos. (map)
Contents
* 1 Record and controversies
o 1.1 Iraq War
o 1.2 Environmental record
o 1.3 Heart bypass surgery
* 2 Bio
o 2.1 Congressional career
+ 2.1.1 2006 elections
* 3 Money in politics
* 4 Committees and Affiliations
o 4.1 Committees
+ 4.1.1 Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)
* 5 More Background Data
* 6 Contact
o 6.1 Campaign Contact Information
* 7 Articles and Resources
o 7.1 Local blogs and discussion sites
Record and controversies
General information about important bills and votes for can be found in Congresspedia’s articles on legislation. You can add information you find on how Paul Kanjorski voted by clicking the [edit] link to the right and typing it in. Remember to cite your sources
Iraq War
Kanjorski voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.[1]
For more information see the chart of U.S. House of Representatives votes on the Iraq War.
Environmental record
For more information on environmental legislation, see the Energy and Environment Policy Portal
Heart bypass surgery
On March 19, 2007, Kanjorski underwent heart bypass surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His office announced that the surgery was to operate on three blood vessels surrounding his heart, and not caused by a heart attack.
Bio
Kanjorski was born April 7, 1937 in Nanticoke, Pennsylvania. He was educated at Temple University and the Dickinson School of Law. He also served in the United States Army. Before his election to Congress, Kanjorski was a trial attorney in Northeastern Pennsylvania. During that time, he served as a worker’s compensation administrative law judge and served as solicitor to several communities.
Congressional career
Kanjorski ran four times for Congress in the early 1980s. On the fourth try, in 1984, he was finally elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Kanjorkski has had a mixed voting record – liberal on economics and moderate on social issues. Kanjorski usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of Northeastern Pennsylvania.
2006 elections
In 2006, Republicans nominated Joseph F. Leonardi to face Kanjorski in his November 2006 bid for reelection. (See U.S. congressional elections in 2006) [1] Kanjorski retained his seat.
Money in politics
This section contains links to – and feeds from – money in politics databases. For specific controversies, see this article’s record and controversies section.
Top Contributors to Paul E. Kanjorski (D) during the 2006 Election Cycle
Rank Donor Amount (US Dollars)
1 SLM Corp $ 18,950
2 New Century Financial Corp $ 17,000
3 National Assn of Realtors $ 11,000
4 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $ 10,000
4 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $ 10,000
4 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $ 10,000
4 National Assn of Home Builders $ 10,000
4 American Assn for Justice $ 10,000
4 American Institute of CPAs $ 10,000
4 Liberty Mutual Insurance $ 10,000
4 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $ 10,000
4 Credit Union National Assn $ 10,000
4 UBS AG $ 10,000
4 Mortgage Bankers Assn $ 10,000
4 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $ 10,000
4 National Assn of Federal Credit Unions $ 10,000
4 New York Stock Exchange $ 10,000
Source: The Center for Responsive Politics’ http://www.OpenSecrets.org site.
Note: Contributions are not from the organizations themselves, but are rather from
the organization’s PAC, employees or owners. Totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Links to more campaign contribution information for Paul Kanjorski
from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org site.
Fundraising profile: 2006 election cycle Career totals
Top contributors by organization/corporation: 2006 election cycle Career totals
Top contributors by industry: 2006 election cycle Career totals
* Revolving door profile for Paul Kanjorski from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org website.
* 2006 privately funded travel profile for Paul Kanjorski from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org website.
* Personal finance profile for Paul Kanjorski from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org website.
Committees and Affiliations
Committees
* House Committee on Financial Services
o Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises -Chair
o Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
o Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
* House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
o Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement
o Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
* House Committee on Science and Technology o Subcommittee on Environment and Energy
Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)
* House Committee on Financial Services
o Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
o Subcommittee on Capital Markets Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises – Ranking Minority Member o Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy Trade and Technology
* House Committee on Government Reform
o Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
o Subcommittee on Government Management Finance and Accountability
More Background Data
* Background information on Paul Kanjorski from Project Vote Smart
* Interest group scorecard ratings for Paul Kanjorski from Project Vote Smart
* Voting record for Paul Kanjorski from the Washington Post database
* Information on Paul Kanjorski from Congress Merge
Wikipedia also has an article on Paul Kanjorski. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.
Contact
DC Office:
2188 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3811
Phone: 202-225-6511
TollFree: 1-800-222-2346
Fax: 202-225-0764
Web Email
Website
District Office- Mount Pocono:
102 Pocono Boulevard
Mount Pocono, PA 18344-1412
Phone: 570-895-4176
Fax:
District Office- Scranton:
546 Spruce Street
Scranton, PA 18503
Phone: 570-496-1011
Fax: 570-496-6439
District Office- Wilkes-Barre:
The Stegmaier Building
7 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard, Suite 400 M
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5283
Phone: 570-825-2200
TollFree: 1-800-222-2346
Fax: 570-825-8685
Campaign Contact Information
Official Kanjorski for Congress Web site
Pennsylvanians For Kanjorski
126 South Franklin Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
Telephone: (570) 825-6070
vote@kanjorski.org
Articles and Resources
* Official website
* Campaign website
* Open Secrets – 2006 congressional races database
* Kanjorski has surgery Roll Call
Local blogs and discussion sites
* Gort 42
* The All-Spin Zone
Corresponding article on Wikipedia and Cause Caller. (If Cause Caller link does not work, pick from its list of senators and representatives.)
Current Office: U.S. House of Representatives
111th Congress
Leadership Position:
Committees Chaired:
Committees,
Ranking Member On:
Caucuses:
Committees:
110th Congress
Leadership Position:
None Committees Chaired:
Committees,
Ranking Member On:
Caucuses:
Committees: House Committee on Financial Services, House Committee on Financial Services/Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, House Committee on Financial Services/Subcommittee on Capital Markets Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, House Committee on Financial Services/Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy Trade and Technology, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform/Subcommittee on Information Policy Census and National Archives, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform/Subcommittee on Government Management Organization and Procurement, House Committee on Science and Technology, House Committee on Science and Technology/Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Congressional Career
First Elected to Current Office:
November 6, 1984 First Took Current Office:
January 3, 1985 Next Election:
November 2, 2010 Term Ends:
Freshman Member?
No Previous Political Work?
None or not available Other Party Membership:
District Offices:
1. 102 Pocono Boulevard, Mount Pocono, PA 18344-1412
Phone: 570-895-4176 / Fax:
2. 546 Spruce Street, Scranton, PA 18503
Phone: 570-496-1011 / Fax: 570-496-6439
3. The Stegmaier Building, 7 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard, Suite 400 M, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5283
Phone: 570-825-2200 / Fax: 570-825-8685
Campaign Contact:
Website: Official Kanjorski for Congress Web site
Webform Email: vote@kanjorski.org / Email: vote@kanjorski.org
Campaign Offices:
1. Pennsylvanians For Kanjorski, 126 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
Phone: 570-825-6070 / Fax:
Categories: Pennsylvania and the U.S. Congress | Members of the U.S. Congress from Pennsylvania | Members of the U.S. House of Representatives – temp | Congresspedia | Members of U.S. House of Representatives | Democratic Party (USA) | Congresspedia pages missing a District Office 1 Fax field
2007-2008 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to American Forest and Paper Association’s position, Representative Kanjorski received a rating of 50 percent.
2007-2008 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 75 percent in 2007-2008.
2007-2008 In 2007-2008 National Federation of Independent Business gave Representative Kanjorski a rating of 60 in its 110th (2007-2008) Pre-Election Congressional Report.
2007-2008 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to National Restaurant Association’s position, Representative Kanjorski received a rating of 60.
2007-2008 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to National Retail Federation’s position, Representative Kanjorski received a rating of 40 percent.
2007 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 7 percent in 2007.
2007 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 45 percent in 2007.
2006 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 35 percent in 2006.
2006 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 41 percent in 2006.
2006 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 43 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the American Forest and Paper Association 36 percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Representative Kanjorski supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 40 percent in 2005-2006.
Choose your cycle:
First Elected: 1984
Next Election: 2008
Committee Assignments:
* Financial Services
* Oversight and Government Reform
* Science
Leadership PAC: Citizens for Action
Cycle Fundraising, 2007 – 2008
Raised: $2,517,285
Spent: $3,153,006
Cash on Hand: $340,023
Debts: $0
Last Report: Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Top 5 Contributors, 2007-2008
AXA $33,000
SLM Corp $26,150
PMA Group $20,250
FMR Corp $16,500
Federated Investors Inc $16,000
Top 5 Industries, 2007-2008
Insurance $345,548
Securities & Investment $312,049
Lawyers/Law Firms $201,697
Real Estate $178,550
Finance/Credit Companies $92,516
Total Raised vs. Average Raised, 2007-2008
2007-2008 Fundraising
Cycle Source of Funds, 2007-2008
legend Individual Contributions $881,518 (35%)
legend PAC Contributions $1,531,728 (61%)
legend Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
legend Other $104,039 (4%)
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2007-2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on April 01, 2009. ( Help The numbers don’t add up… )
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
Paul E. Kanjorski personal relations:
Nancy Kanjorski – sister-in-law, spouse
Peter Kanjorski – brother
Other current Paul E. Kanjorski relationships:
Citizens for Action – PAC
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – member
House Science and Technology Committee – member
K&K Real Estate – co-owner
U.S. House of Representatives – member
Paul E. Kanjorski past relationships:
Financial markets bailout bill (House -9/29/08) – voted for
Financial markets bailout bill (House -10/3/08) – voted for
Paul E. Kanjorski connections, once removed:
Paul E. Kanjorski is connected to …
Peter Kanjorski >> through K&K Real Estate >> Map it
Note: This may be a partial list. Click on the map above to explore more connections.
Congressional & campaign info:
Paul E. Kanjorski is a Democrat from PA
representing congressional district 11
Contact info and committee assignments
Campaign contributors (from the Center for Responsive Politics)
Power ranking (by Knowlegis)
House Committee on Financial Services/Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises
From OpenCongress Wiki < House Committee on Financial Services
This is a subcommittee of the House Committee on Financial Services.
Membership
Member ? Party ? State ?
Paul Kanjorski D PA
Gary Ackerman D NY
Brad Sherman D CA
Michael Capuano D MA
Ruben Hinojosa D TX
Carolyn McCarthy D NY
Joe Baca D CA
Stephen Lynch D MA
Brad Miller D NC
David Scott D GA
Nydia Velazquez D NY
Carolyn Maloney D NY
Melissa Bean D IL
Gwen Moore D WI
Paul Hodes D NH
Ron Klein D FL
Ed Perlmutter D CO
Joe Donnelly D IN
Andre Carson D IN
Jackie Speier D CA
Travis Childers D MS
Charles Wilson D OH
Bill Foster D IL
Walt Minnick D ID
John Adler D NJ
Mary Jo Kilroy D OH
Suzanne Kosmas D FL
Alan Grayson D FL
Jim Himes D CT
Gary Peters D MI
Scott Garrett R NJ
Tom Price R GA
Mike Castle R DE
Peter King R NY
Frank Lucas R OK
Donald Manzullo R IL
Ed Royce R CA
Judy Biggert R IL
Shelley Moore Capito R WV
Jeb Hensarling R TX
Adam Putnam R FL
Gresham Barrett R SC
Jim Gerlach R PA
John Campbell R CA
Michele M. Bachmann R MN
Thaddeus McCotter R MI
Randy Neugebauer R TX
Kevin McCarthy R CA
Bill Posey R FL
Lynn Jenkins R KS
Previous memberships
110th Congress
Members of the
Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises,
110th Congress
Democrats: Republicans:
* Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Chairman
* Gary Ackerman (N.Y.)
* Brad Sherman (Calif.)
* Greg Meeks (N.Y.)
* Dennis Moore (Kan.)
* Michael Capuano (Mass.)
* Ruben Hinojosa (Texas)
* Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.)
* Joe Baca (Calif.)
* Stephen Lynch (Mass.)
* Brad Miller (N.C.)
* David Scott (Ga.)
* Nydia Velazquez (N.Y.)
* Melissa Bean (Ill.)
* Gwen Moore (Wis.)
* Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
* Albio Sires (N.J.)
* Paul Hodes (N.H.)
* Ron Klein (Fla.)
* Tim Mahoney (Fla.)
* Ed Perlmutter (Colo.)
* Chris Murphy (Conn.)
* Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
* Robert Wexler (Fla.)
* Jim Marshall (Ga.)
* Dan Boren (Okla.)
* Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Ranking Member
* Rick Renzi (Ariz.)
* Richard Baker (La.)
* Chris Shays (Conn.)
* Paul Gillmor (Ohio)
* Mike Castle (Del.)
* Peter King (N.Y.)
* Frank Lucas (Okla.)
* Donald Manzullo (Ill.)
* Ed Royce (Calif.)
* Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.)
* Adam Putnam (Fla.)
* Gresham Barrett (S.C.)
* Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
* Ginny Brown Waite (Fla.)
* Tom Feeney (Fla.)
* Scott Garrett (N.J.)
* Jim Gerlach (Pa.)
* Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
* Geoff Davis (Ky.)
* John Campbell (Calif.)
* Michele M. Bachmann (Minn.)
* Peter Roskam (Ill.)
Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, March 02, 2009.
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2007-2008 election cycle. ( Help The numbers don’t add up… )
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
***
**** [ SLM gave over $18,000 to Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski who just demanded FASB to hearing in front of his committee and pressured the change away from mark-to-market accounting. 04-09]
SLM – Corporate board
Anthony P. Terracciano is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Terracciano joined the board in January 2008 following the failed sale of Sallie Mae to J.C. Flowers.
Mr. Terracciano was formerly President of First Union Corporation (now Wachovia), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of First Fidelity Bank Corporation, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mellon Bank, Vice Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, and non-executive Chairman of both The Dime Bank and Riggs National Corporation.
Al Lord currently holds the positions of Vice Chairman and CEO. Mr. Lord joined Sallie Mae in 1981, took over as CEO in 1995, and led the company’s privatization.
*** Anthony P. Terracciano
Chairman of the Board/Director SLM Corporation
Reston , VA
Sector: FINANCIAL / Credit Services
68 Years Old Anthony P. Terracciano, Chairman, SLM Corporation-January 2008 to present; Chairman, Riggs National Corporation-2004 to 2005; Vice Chairman, American Water Works Company Inc.-1998 to 2003; Chairman, Dime Bancorp-2000 to 2002; President, First Union Corporation (now Wachovia); Chairman and CEO, First Fidelity Bancorp; President Mellon Bank Corp.; Vice Chairman and Chief Financial officer, Chase Manhattan Bank. Directorships of Other Public Companies: IKON Office Solutions. Other Activities: Director, Avaya, Inc. Trustee, Monmouth Medical Center, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey State Investment Council.
Director Compensation (Knoll, Incorporated) for 2007
Fees earned or paid in cash $43,750.00
Stock awards $0.00
Option awards (in $) $15,463.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nondisqualified compensation earnings $0.00
All other compensation $0.00
Total Compensation $59,213.00
Director Compensation (Knoll, Incorporated) for 2006
Fees earned or paid in cash $32,500.00
Stock awards $0.00
Option awards (in $) $25,290.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nondisqualified compensation earnings $0.00
All other compensation $0.00
Total Compensation $57,790.00
Albert L. Lord Director/CEO/Vice Chairman
John J. Hewes Chief Credit Officer/Executive VP
Robert S. Autor Executive VP/Chief Information Officer
John (Jack) F. Remondi CFO/Vice Chairman/Chief Accounting Officer Anthony P. Terracciano Chairman of the Board/Director
Robert S. Lavet Senior VP/General Counsel
Michael E. Sheehan General Counsel/Senior VP
Earl A. Goode Director
Ann Torre Bates Director
J. Lance Franke Executive VP, Divisional See All Executives and Directors at SLM Corporation
Anthony P. Terracciano current relationships:
SLM Corporation – chairman
Anthony P. Terracciano past relationships:
American Water Works Company Inc. – vice chairman
Avaya Inc. – director
Dime Bancorp. – chairman
IKON Office Solutions Inc. – director
Knoll Inc. – director
Riggs National Corporation – chairman
Anthony P. Terracciano connections, once removed:
Anthony P. Terracciano is connected to …
PNC Financial Services Group acquired Riggs National in 2005.
Riggs National Corporation past relationships:
Joe L. Allbritton – CEO
Robert L. Allbritton – chairman & CEO
Lawrence I. Hebert – CEO PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. – acquirer
Anthony P. Terracciano – chairman
SLM Corporation financial information:
Securities and Exchange Commission filings
Stock quote and chart
People related to SLM Corporation:
Ann Torre Bates – director
William M. Diefenderfer III – director
Diane Suitt Gilleland – director
Earl A. Goode – director
Ronald F. Hunt – director
Albert L. Lord – CEO & vice chairman
Michael E. Martin – director
Barry A. Munitz – director
Howard H. Newman – director
A. Alexander Porter Jr. – director
Frank C. Puleo – director
John F. Remondi – vice chairman & CFO
Wolfgang Schoellkopf – director
Steven L. Shapiro – director
Anthony P. Terracciano – chairman
Barry L. Williams – director
Barry Lawson Williams – director
Other current SLM Corporation relationships:
Clark & Weinstock, Inc. – lobby firm
Downey McGrath Group – lobby firm
Sallie Mae – parent corporation
Van Scoyoc Associates – lobby firm
SLM Corporation past relationships:
Charles L. Daley – director
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick – CEO & vice chairman
Benjamin J. Lambert III – director
People related to Sallie Mae:
Charles Elliott Andrews – president
Robert S. Autor – EVP & CIO
Charles Elliott Fitzpatrick – EVP & CFO
June M. McCormack – EVP
Other current Sallie Mae relationships:
Global USA – lobby firm
ML Strategies LLC – lobby firm
Patton Boggs LLP – lobby firm
Sallie Mae PAC – PAC
SLM Corporation – parent corporation
Student Loan Marketing Association – division
Sallie Mae past relationships: John B. Breaux – lobbyist
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick – CEO
While in the Senate, Breaux was a beacon of insight on energy issues. He served as co-chair of the Oil and Gas Caucus and was a conferee on energy legislation that was eventually written into the 2005 Energy Bill. He was active in advancing legislation to promote domestic oil and gas production, and was a cosponsor of the Marginal Well Preservation Act, a tax incentive program that encouraged oil production from marginal oil wells. He was also a principal author of the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act.
***
ML Strategies LLC
People related to ML Strategies LLC:
David J. Leiter – VP
Other current ML Strategies LLC relationships:
American Science and Engineering, Inc. – lobby firm
Astellas Pharma US – lobby firm
Business Software Alliance – lobby firm
Cablevision Systems Corporation – lobby firm
Contractors International Group on Nuclear Liability – lobby firm
Direct Carbon Technologies – lobby firm
Distributed Energy Systems, Inc. – lobby firm
eBay Inc. – lobby firm Exxon Mobil Corp. – lobby firm
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – lobby firm
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care – lobby firm
Inland Northwest Research Alliance – lobby firm
Israel Policy Forum – lobby firm
Madison Square Garden – lobby firm
Minuteclinic, Inc. – lobby firm National Automobile Dealers Association – lobby firm
National Cable & Telecommunications Association – lobby firm
New Energy Capital – lobby firm
NPower NY – lobby firm
Sallie Mae – lobby firm
Station Casinos Inc. – lobby firm
Tenneco, Inc. – lobby firm
Trigen Cos. – lobby firm
SLM Corporation is based in Reston, VA
Business sector:
personal credit institutions
SLM Corporation financial information:
Securities and Exchange Commission filings
Stock quote and chart
People related to SLM Corporation:
Ann Torre Bates – director
William M. Diefenderfer III – director
Diane Suitt Gilleland – director
Earl A. Goode – director
Ronald F. Hunt – director
Albert L. Lord – CEO & vice chairman
Michael E. Martin – director
Barry A. Munitz – director
Howard H. Newman – director
A. Alexander Porter Jr. – director
Frank C. Puleo – director
John F. Remondi – vice chairman & CFO
Wolfgang Schoellkopf – director
Steven L. Shapiro – director
Anthony P. Terracciano – chairman
Barry L. Williams – director
Barry Lawson Williams – director
Other current SLM Corporation relationships:
Clark & Weinstock, Inc. – lobby firm
Downey McGrath Group – lobby firm
Sallie Mae – parent corporation
Van Scoyoc Associates – lobby firm
SLM Corporation past relationships:
Charles L. Daley – director
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick – CEO & vice chairman
Benjamin J. Lambert III – director
**
William M. Diefenderfer III
William M. Diefenderfer III current relationships:
Diefenderfer, Hoover & Wood – partner
SLM Corporation – director
U-Store-It Trust – chairman
William M. Diefenderfer III past relationships:
U.S. Office of Management and Budget – deputy director
[Ford and Bush administrations – various appointments]
EXECUTIVE PROFILE*
William M. Diefenderfer III Return to SLM Corp.
Chairman, U-Store-It Trust
This person is connected to 25 board members in 2 different organizations across 2 different industries.
See Board Relationships
Age: 62 —
BACKGROUND*
William M. Diefenderfer, III has been a Partner in the law firm of Diefenderfer, Hoover, Boyle & Wood, Pittsburgh, PA since 1991. Mr. Diefenderfer Co-founded Enumerate Solutions Inc., in 1998 and served as its Chief Executive Officer and President from 2000 to 2002. Mr. Diefenderfer’s accomplished career spans three fields – law, business, and public service.
Mr. Diefenderfer Founded USA Education, Inc. (Sallie Mae) and Chart House Enterprises, Inc.
He served as Deputy … Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1989 to 1991. From 1992 to 1996, he served as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Icarus Aircraft, Inc.
He has held senior leadership positions on the staffs of members of Congress, and in the White House for President Gerald Ford and George H. Bush. In October 2006, he served with the Commission on the Future of American Veterans, the purpose of which is to formulate a clear plan to guide the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs for the next twenty years.
He has been the Chairman of U-Store-It Trust since February 14, 2007. Mr. Diefenderfer has been Vice-Chairman of the Board of Enumerate Solutions Inc. since 2000.
He has been an Independent Director of SLM Corp., since May 20, 1997. He serves as a Director of The Student Loan Marketing Association Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SLM Corporation. He serves as Director of USA Education, Inc. (Sallie Mae) and Chart House Enterprises, Inc.
He has been an Independent Trustee of U-Store-It Trust since October 2004.
He served as a Member of Standing Advisory Group of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Boards from 2004 to 2005. He served as Chief of Staff of two U.S. Senate Committees: the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. Diefenderfer holds degrees from Dickinson College (B.A.), Duquesne University School of Law (J.D.), and Kings College, University of London (L.L.M.). .
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS*
460 East Swedesford Road
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
United States
Phone: 610-293-5700
Fax: — BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERSHIPS*
2007-Present
Chairman
U-Store-It Trust
1997-Present
Independent Director, Chairman of Audit Committee, Member of Nominations & Governance Committee and Member of Executive Committee SLM Corp. EDUCATION*
BA
Dickinson College
JD
Duquesne University School of Law OTHER AFFILIATIONS*
AM-CH, Inc. SLM Corp.
enumerate Solutions Incorporated
Dickinson College
Duquesne University School of Law
ANNUAL COMPENSATION*
There is no Annual Compensation data available.
STOCK OPTIONS*
There is no Stock Options data available.
TOTAL COMPENSATION*
Total Annual Cash Compensation $54,914
Total Calculated Compensation $103,000
*** William M. Diefenderfer
Trustee/Chairman of the Board
U-Store-It Trust
Cleveland , OH
Sector: FINANCIAL / REIT – Industrial
Director , SLM Corporation
Reston , VA
Sector: FINANCIAL / Credit Services
62 Years Old
William M. Diefenderfer III, 62, has served as our Chairman of the Board since February 2007 and as a trustee since our initial public offering in October 2004. Mr. Diefenderfer has been a partner in the law firm of Diefenderfer, Hoover, Boyle & Wood since 1991. He served as Chief Executive Officer and President of Enumerate Solutions Inc., a privately-owned technology company that he co-founded, from 2000 to 2002. From 1992 to 1996, Mr. Diefenderfer served as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Icarus Aircraft, Inc., a privately-owned aviation technology company. Mr. Diefenderfer served a two-year term on the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Standing Advisory Group from 2004 through 2005. In October 2006, he accepted appointment to the Commission on the Future of American Veterans, the purpose of which is to formulate a clear plan to guide the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs for the next twenty years. Mr. Diefenderfer serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of Enumerate Solutions Inc., as well as chairman of its Audit Committee. He currently serves on the board of SLM Corporation, a publicly-traded company more commonly known as Sallie Mae, a leading provider of student loans and administrator of college savings plans.
Director Compensation (U-Store-It Trust) for 2007
Fees earned or paid in cash $54,914.00
Stock awards $41,158.00
Option awards (in $) $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nondisqualified compensation earnings $0.00
All other compensation $6,928.00
Total Compensation $103,000.00
Director Compensation (SLM Corporation) for 2007
Fees earned or paid in cash $92,000.00
Stock awards $0.00
Option awards (in $) $114,889.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nondisqualified compensation earnings $0.00
All other compensation $100,057.00
Total Compensation $306,946.00
Director Compensation (SLM Corporation) for 2006
Fees earned or paid in cash $0.00
Stock awards $0.00
Option awards (in $) $292,946.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nondisqualified compensation earnings $0.00
All other compensation $70,081.00
Total Compensation $363,027.00
Director Compensation (U-Store-It Trust) for 2006
Fees earned or paid in cash $58,000.00
Stock awards $0.00
Option awards (in $) $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nondisqualified compensation earnings $0.00
All other compensation $3,073.00
Total Compensation $61,073.00
***
United Student Aid Funds or USA Funds is a nonprofit corporation that works to enhance postsecondary-education preparedness, access and success by providing and supporting financial and other valued services. USA Funds links colleges, universities, proprietary schools, private lenders, students and parents to promote financial access to higher learning.
Established in Indianapolis in 1960 to help families finance rising college costs, USA Funds has grown to become the nation’s largest guarantor of loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), the largest federal source of financial aid for higher education. During the past 44 years, the USA Funds guarantee has supported a total of nearly $115.5 billion in financial aid for higher education. USA Funds has served more than 13.6 million students and parents. SMS Hawaii, the nonprofit student-loan secondary market for Hawaii, is an affiliate of USA Funds. Another USA Funds affiliate, Northwest Education Loan Association, is a nonprofit guarantor that serves the Pacific Northwest. NELA is the designated guarantor for the states of Idaho and Washington. USA Funds guarantees education loans for students and parents throughout the nation. In addition, USA Funds serves as the designated guarantor of federal education loans in eight states: Arizona, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada and Wyoming.
Affiliation with Sallie Mae
USA Funds contracts with affiliates of Sallie Mae, the leading guarantor-servicing organization, to deliver some of the services necessary to support USA Funds’ guarantee.
Before July 31, 2000, USA Funds was an affiliate of USA Group. USA Funds contracted with other USA Group affiliates to these lenders contract with Sallie Mae for servicing and loan acquisition; others have no contractual relationships with Sallie Mae. Postsecondary institutions, their students, and parents are free to choose the lenders with which they wish to work while using the USA Funds guarantee.
Sallie Mae – Private Student Loans, Federal Student Loans, Private …
SLM Corporation and its subsidiaries are not sponsored by or agencies of the United States of America. Resources for tuition in tough times …
Show stock quote for SLM http://www.salliemae.com/
SLM Corp. debt offerings
Commercial paper: SLM Corp. generally issues its commercial paper on a daily basis through various commercial paper dealers. Maturities for our commercial … www.salliemae.com/about/investors/debtasset/slmcorp/
***
News results for SLM Corp Fitch Affirms 230 Classes from 51 SLM FFELP Student Loan Transactions – Mar 31, 2009 The loans are originated by SLM Corp. SLM is rated ‘BBB/F3’ on Rating Watch Negative by Fitch. The loans are serviced by Sallie Mae, Inc. which is rated …
FOXBusiness
***
SLM Corporation Debt Offerings
Debt Offerings
Medium Term Notes Program: Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements, Pricing Supplements
EdNotes® Medium Term Notes Program: Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements, Pricing Supplements
Senior Notes: Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements
Commercial paper: SLM Corp. generally issues its commercial paper on a daily basis through various commercial paper dealers. Maturities for our commercial paper range from 1 day to 270 days. There is no additional information related to SLM Corp.’s commercial paper on this website.
Information on SLM Corporation Debt
Search for information on a particular SLM Corp. debt offering by CUSIP number.
Rate/payment/general information for all SLM Corp. debt offerings.
SLM Corporation, commonly known as Sallie Mae, is the parent company of a number of college savings, education lending, debt collection, and other subsidiaries.
The corporate structure chart shows how Sallie Mae’s business is organized.
***
.
Sallie Mae
* Home |
* About us |
* Contact us |
* Scholarships
Find
Corporate structure
About us
* Careers at Sallie Mae
* News and information
* Investors
* Corporate overview
o Corporate structure
+ Sallie Mae, Inc.
+ Academic Management Services
+ Arrow Financial Services
+ General Revenue Corporation
+ GRP Financial Services
+ Nellie Mae Corporation
+ Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.
+ Sallie Mae Bank
+ Sallie Mae Education Trust
+ SLM Financial Corporation
+ Southwest Student Services Corporation
+ Student Assistance Corporation
+ Student Loan Finance Association
+ Student Loan Funding Resources LLC
o Senior management
* Philanthropy at Sallie Mae
* The Sallie Mae Fund
Corporate structure
Sallie Mae business organization
SLM Corporation®
Corporate structure
1995–2009 Sallie Mae, Inc.
SLM Corporation and its subsidiaries are not sponsored by or agencies of the United States of America.
Market Winners & Losers: SLM Corp., AIG – FOXBusiness.com
Mar 26, 2009 … The market fought off the bad economic numbers again to close the session up 2.8% on average. While all three of the indices finishing in … www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/market-winners–losers-slm-corp-aig/
*** SLM Corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sallie Mae)
SLM Corporation
Type Public (NYSE: SLM)
Founded 1972
Headquarters Reston, VA, USA
Key people Anthony P. Terracciano, Chairman
Al Lord, Vice Chairman and CEO
Industry Education finance
Products Government guaranteed student loans
Private student loans
K-12 loans
College savings plans
Employees 12,000 (2007)
Website SallieMae.com
CollegeAnswer.com
Be Debt Savvy
Upromise.com
SLM Corporation NYSE: SLM, commonly known as Sallie Mae, is the United States’ largest college student loan company, managing more than $126.9 billion in debt for more than 10 million borrowers, and employing 12,000 individuals at offices nationwide.
The company primarily provides federally guaranteed student loans originated under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and offers resources to assist students, parents, and guidance professionals with the financial aid process.
Contents
* 1 History
* 2 Corporate information
* 3 Corporate board
* 4 Social Responsibility
* 5 Controversies
* 6 Subsidiaries
* 7 References
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
History
The Student Loan Marketing Association was originally created in 1972 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and began privatizing its operations in 1997, a process it completed at the end of 2004 when Congress terminated its federal charter, ending its ties to the government. The company remains the country’s largest originator of federally insured student loans. Through its specialized subsidiaries and divisions, Sallie Mae also provides debt management services as well as business and technical products to a range of business clients, including colleges, universities and loan guarantors.
In 2005, Sallie Mae was among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush.[1] [2] [3]
In August 2006, Sallie Mae acquired Upromise, a company which provides rebates to buyers of certain brands, which can be applied to college savings accounts. Sallie Mae and Upromise plan to market comprehensive financial packages to parents and students, including investment plans, financial aid information, and student loans.
On April 16, 2007, Sallie Mae announced that an investor group led by J.C. Flowers & Co. signed an agreement to purchase Sallie Mae for approximately $25 billion (USD). Had the transaction completed, J.C. Flowers along with private-equity firm Friedman Fleischer & Lowe would have owned 50.2 percent of Sallie Mae, and Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase would each have owned 24.9 percent. Sallie Mae would have ceased to be a publicly traded company.[4] The deal fell through in September 2007, with the buyers blaming adverse changes to the business’s outlook as a result of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and the tightening of global credit markets following the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis[5]. Sallie Mae subsequently began legal action, only to drop it in January 2008 upon completion of a $31 billion funding round, including funding from Bank of America[6].
Corporate information
Sallie Mae operates servicing centers in Gilbert, Arizona; Panama City, Florida; Indianapolis, Indiana; Mount Laurel, New Jersey; Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Killeen, Texas, and Whitewater, Wisconsin, as well as 71 other offices in the United States.
Sallie Mae is listed on both the Fortune 500 and the Forbes Global 2000. The company has been recognized as one of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens according to Business Ethics magazine and one of the top 30 companies for executive women by the National Association of Female Executives.
Corporate board
Anthony P. Terracciano is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Terracciano joined the board in January 2008 following the failed sale of Sallie Mae to J.C. Flowers. Mr. Terracciano was formerly President of First Union Corporation (now Wachovia), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of First Fidelity Bank Corporation, President and Chief Operating Officer of Mellon Bank, Vice Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, and non-executive Chairman of both The Dime Bank and Riggs National Corporation. Al Lord currently holds the positions of Vice Chairman and CEO. Mr. Lord joined Sallie Mae in 1981, took over as CEO in 1995, and led the company’s privatization.
Social Responsibility
Corporate Responsibility Officer has named Sallie Mae one of America’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens five times. Corporations (over 1,100 are evaluated) are selected according to community, governance, diversity, and environmental best business practices.
Sallie Mae sponsors The Sallie Mae Fund, a charitable organization with a mission to increase access to higher education for America’s students by supporting and starting programs and initiatives that help open doors to higher education. The Sallie Mae Fund prepares families and students for college and provides scholarship funding that focuses on minority, low-income, and first in the family students. Since 2001, The Sallie Mae Fund has awarded $10 million in scholarships to help 4,000 students enroll in college. That is $1 donated for every $12,690 under their management.
Through The Fund’s work, Sallie Mae was named among BusinessWeek’s Top 15 Corporate Philanthropists in 2004. The Washington Business Journal identified the company as the top local corporate philanthropist in 2005.[1]
Sallie Mae won the Ron Brown Award for Corporate Leadership in 2006. It was honored for three college-access programs developed by The Sallie Mae Fund: Latino College Access Campaign, Project Access: DC, and The Sallie Mae Fund Scholarship Programs.
The Sallie Mae Fund earned the 2007 Insight Award for Customer Advocacy in Financial Services (from Insight Forums, LLC). The award recognizes financial communications initiatives that proactively enable customers to make fully-informed choices.
Controversies
On November 9, 2005, former Sallie Mae employee Michael Zahara filed a federal lawsuit against the company, alleging that it had a pattern and practice of granting forbearance in a purposeful effort to increase total student loan debt. That lawsuit is still ongoing.[7] On October 29, 2008, permission was granted to his legal counsel to withdraw from the case, citing From counsel’s perspective, a breakdown in trust has resulted from the discovery that Relator has been arrested for extortion, the circumstances surrounding that arrest, and Relator’s failure to disclose the arrest to counsel. [8][9]
A 60 Minutes segment (originally aired May 7, 2006) examined Sallie Mae, including its business practices.[2] A professor of law at Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Warren, who is also an expert on bankruptcy and an outspoken critic of consumer lenders, questions Sallie Mae’s dual role as both lender and collector.[3]
In February, 2007, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched an investigation into alleged deceptive lending practices by student loan providers, including The College Board, EduCap, Nelnet, Citibank, and Sallie Mae.[4]
On April 11, 2007, Cuomo ended his investigation of Sallie Mae and announced that Sallie Mae had voluntarily agreed to change its lending standards to satisfy a new code of conduct for student loan practices established by Cuomo, and to donate $2 million (USD) to a fund devoted to educating college-bound students about their loan options. [5]
On October 10, 2007, documents surfaced showing that Sallie Mae was attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to force colleges to turn over students’ personal information.[10] The university involved, the State University of New York system, is expected to decline the request and be forced to defend its position in court.
On December 19, 2007, Chairman Al Lord acted out in frustration during an earnings call with analysts, he ended the call with There are no more questions. Let’s get the fuck out of here. Sallie Mae’s stock price fell 21% that day.[11]
Subsidiaries
* Academic Management Services Corp. (Acquired 2003)
* Arrow Financial Services (Acquired Majority Interest September 2004)
* First Trust Financial
* General Revenue Corporation (Acquired January 2002)
* GRP Financial Services (Acquired August 2005)
* Nellie Mae (Acquired July 1999)
* Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc.
* Sallie Mae Bank
* Sallie Mae Home Loans
* Sallie Mae Inc.
* SLM Financial Corporation
* Southwest Student Services Corporation (Acquired October 2004)
* Student Assistance Corporation
* Student Loan Finance Association (Acquired November 2004)
* Student Loan Funding (Acquired July 7, 2000)
* Upromise (Acquired August 23, 2006)
* Fannie Mae
* Farmer Mac
* Freddie Mac
* Ginnie Mae
* USA Funds
External links
* SallieMae.com
* The Sallie Mae Fund
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLM_Corporation
Categories: Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange | Companies based in Reston, Virginia | Companies established in 1972 | Education finance | Financial aid | Financial services companies of the United States
Note – WHAT HAPPENED to the $35 Billion dollar loan made through the Dept. Of Energy last fall for the re-tooling of these plants to create fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars’ production?
****
Today, the financial accounting standards board is voting to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules. And, why?
I had noticed that the financial accounting standards board (FASB) chairman (and others) had been called to a Congressional committee to a hearing about mark-to-market. At that point, he was pressured to change this accounting standard and to suspend it.
Going back to a fantasy based accounting system has been demanded by Republicans heavier and heavier every day, but it seemed odd that this Financial Committee Chairman who called the hearing was Democrat, Paul E. Kanjorski. So I looked it up and it turns out that $937,495 dollars in campaign contributions had come to him in 2008 from finance, industry and real estate PACs, along with those who will benefit directly.
He also received over $18,000 in 2008 from SLM – so who is that and what do they do? (See chart below)
Oh, my God – can we say twisted and illegal conflicts of interest ?
cricketdiane, 04-02-09
(Posted on Facebook – 5:25 a.m., 04-02-09)
****
The circle of influence in Washington around the Congressional Halls must be pay to play – The interesting connections between the FASB change to the Mark to Market rule and Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Chairman of House Committee on Financial Services/Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises who has forced the suspension of mark-to-market to be made
***
iasb@iasb.org
International Accounting Standards Board
search :
* Subscribe to the IASB.Org RSS feed
* Home
* About Us
* Projects
* Open to Comment
* Meetings
* News
Current Location in website:
* About Us
* Contact Us
* About the IASB
* About the IASC Foundation
* About the Trustees
* About the IFRIC
* About the SAC
* About Working Groups
* About the Financial Crisis Advisory Group
* How we are structured
* How we develop standards
* How we develop Interpretations
* Glossary
* Frequently Asked Questions
* Contact Us
* Vacancies
Contact Us
The Board, Technical, Operations, Translation and Publications Staff are located in our principal offices in central London.
You may contact the IASC Foundation at:
First Floor
30 Cannon Street
London, EC4M 6XH
United Kingdom
From Heathrow Airport take the Heathrow Express to Paddington, and either a taxi to 30 Cannon Street or the Circle Line train to Mansion House station.
From Gatwick Airport take the Gatwick Express to London Victoria station, and either a taxi to 30 Cannon Street or the Circle or District Line train to Mansion House station.
Technical Activities
The IASB welcomes comments from the public as part of its commitment to developing accounting standards through a full, open and public due process.
30 Cannon Street, London
* View a larger map.
* Download a London Underground map.
You may contact either Board or Technical Staff on:
* Read our guidelines on technical enquiries.
* Individual Technical Staff contact information can be found on each of our IASB and IFRIC Projects pages.
* Submit a comment on any of our current publications that are open to comment.
* Propose an agenda item for consideration by the IFRIC.
Publications
Please send comments or questions about IASB publications and subscriptions to:
IASCF Publications
30 Cannon Street
London EC4M 6XH
United Kingdom
*** Members of the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee
The International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) comprises 14 voting members drawn from a variety of countries and professional backgrounds.
They are appointed by the Trustees of the IASC Foundation and are selected for their ability to maintain an awareness of current issues as they arise and the technical ability to resolve them.
* Joanna Perry
* Luca Cencioni
* Jean Paré
* Guido Fladt
* Bernd Hacker
* Sara York Kenny
* Jean-Louis Lebrun
* Takatsugu Ochi
* Ruth Picker
* Margaret Smyth
* Scott Taub
* Darrel Scott
* Ken Wild
* Andrew Vials
Observers
* International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
* European Commission
The Financial Instruments Working Group will help the IASB take a fresh look at the accounting standard IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement by examining and questioning the fundamentals of the standard within the context of the IASB’s Framework.
The review will therefore focus on improving, simplifying and ultimately replacing IAS 39 and will examine broader questions of the application and extent of fair value accounting, a topic on which the IASB has not reached any conclusion.
Although any major revision of IAS 39 may take several years to complete, the IASB is willing to revise the standard in the short term if any immediate solutions emerge from the working group’s discussions. Members
* Melissa Allen, European Head of New Business and Technical Accounting Support Credit Suisse First Boston, United Kingdom
* Joseph Boateng, Chief Investment Officer, Casey Family Programs, United States
* Philippe Bordenave, Group Chief Financial Officer, BNP, France
* Gunther Gebhardt, Professor, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Germany
* Mark Kirkland, Vice President, Corporate Treasury, Philips, The Netherlands
* Leanne Leong, General Manager, Capital Management & Securitisation, Commonwealth Bank, Australia
* François Masquelier, Head of Corporate Finance and Treasury, RTL, France * Esther Mills, Managing Director, Accounting Standards and Controls, Morgan Stanley, United States
* Ralph Odermatt, Managing Director, Head of Group Accounting Policies and Support, UBS, Switzerland
* Russell Picot, Group Chief Accounting Officer, HSBC, United Kingdom
* Kristian Pullola, Director, Treasury Finance & Control, Nokia Corporation, Switzerland
* Francis Ruijgt, ING Group Corporate Insurance Risk Management, Deputy Chief Insurance Risk Officer International Actuarial Association/ING Group, The Netherlands
* Yoshio Sato, Partner in Financial Industries Group, Deloitte, Japan
* Elisabeth Schmalfuss, Head of Accounting and Controlling Policies, Siemens, Germany
* Sadaki Takagi, Senior Director for Bank Accounting, Japanese Bankers Association, Japan * Bob Uhl, Managing Director, Accounting Policy, Goldman, Sachs & Co., United States
* Pauline Wallace, Partner in IFRS Services, PwC, United Kingdom
Observers
* Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
* European Central Bank
* European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)
* International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS)
* International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
* Representative from the Insurance Working Group
The BIS maintains no office, branch, or affiliate other than those listed below.
Location: Centralbahnplatz 2
Basel
Switzerland
View map
Postal Address: CH-4002 Basel
Telephone: (+41 61) 280 8080
Fax: (+41 61) 280 9100 and
(+41 61) 280 8100
Telex: 962 487 biz ch
SWIFT address: BISBCHBB
Website: www.bis.org
Representative Office for Asia and the Pacific
Location: 78th floor, Two International Finance Centre
8 Finance Street, Central
Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China
View map
Telephone: (+852) 2878 7100
Fax: (+852) 2878 7123
Representative Office for the Americas
Location: Torre Chapultepec
Rubén Darío 281 – 17th floor
Col. Bosque de Chapultepec
Del. Miguel Hidalgo
11580 México, D.F.
México
Telephone: (+52) 55 91380290
Fax: (+52) 55 91380299
E-mail us
BIS e-mail address: email@bis.org
Website comments and questions:
webmaster@bis.org
Order publications: publications@bis.org
Contact individual BIS staff members using e-mail format:
firstname.lastname@bis.org
Journalist/media enquiries
Press & Communications, the BIS’s press office in Basel, is staffed Monday to Friday, 0900 to 1800 Central European Time. Outside of these times, please e-mail or leave a message at the telephone number below.
Press officers are Margaret Critchlow and Lisa Weekes.
E-mail: press.service@bis.org
Telephone: (+41 61) 280 8188
Fax: (+41 61) 280 9100 or (+41 61) 280 8100
* History of the Committee
* Fact sheet
* Press releases
* Speeches
* Events
* Joint Forum
o History
o Mandate
* Working papers
* Newsletters
* Comments by BCBS
Publications
* All Joint Forum
Publications by category
* Money laundering and terrorist financing
* Operational risk
* Other risks
* Risk management
* Transparency and disclosure
* BIS home
* Monetary & financial stability
* Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
* Joint Forum
Joint Forum
The Joint Forum was established in 1996 under the aegis of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) to deal with issues common to the banking, securities and insurance sectors, including the regulation of financial conglomerates. The Joint Forum is comprised of an equal number of senior bank, insurance and securities supervisors representing each supervisory constituency.
Chairman
Current: John C Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency, United States
Previous: Dirk Witteveen, de Nederlandsche Bank (2006-September 2007)
Ian Johnston, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (June-December 2005)
Gay Huey Evans, UK Financial Services Authority (2004-June 2005)
José María Roldán, Bank of Spain (2002-2003)
Jarl Symreng, Finansinspektionen – Sweden (2000-2001)
Alan Cameron, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (1998-1999)
Tom de Swaan, de Nederlandsche Bank (1996-1997)
Membership
The Joint Forum is comprised of an equal number of senior bank, insurance and securities supervisors representing each supervisory constituency.
Country
Banking
Insurance
Securities
Australia:
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Belgium:
Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission
Canada:
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Autorité des marchés financiers (Québec) 1
Denmark:
Danish Financial Supervisory Authority
France:
Commission Bancaire
Commission de Contrôle des Assurances
Autorité des marchés financiers
Germany:
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungs-
aufsicht
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungs-
aufsicht
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungs-
aufsicht
Italy:
Banca d’Italia
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa
Japan:
Bank of Japan
Financial Services Agency
Financial Services Agency
Netherlands:
De Nederlandsche Bank
Spain:
Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores
Switzerland:
Eidg. Bankenkommission
United Kingdom:
Financial Services Authority
Financial Services Authority
Financial Services Authority
United States:
Federal Reserve Board
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
Securities and Exchange Commission
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
International Association of Insurance Supervisors
International Organization of Securities Commission
European Commission (Observer)
Secretariat:
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
Frequency of meetings
The Joint Forum usually meets three times per year.
1 Effective August 2005, the Ontario Securities Commission and the Autorité des marchés financiers (Québec)(AMF)share this seat on a 2-year rotational basis.
* About BIS
o Overview
o Organisation
o Activities
o History
o Legal information
o Representative offices
o Recruitment
o Contact
* Central bank hub
o Overview
o Central bank websites
o Central bankers speeches
o International Journal of Central Banking
o Regulatory authorities
o Research hub
* Monetary & financial stability
o Overview
o Basel II
o Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
o Committee on the Global Financial System
o Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems
o Irving Fisher Committee
o Financial Stability Institute
o Other BIS-hosted organisations
* Banking services
o Bank for central banks
o Products and services
o Balance sheet
* Publications & research
o Research at BIS
o Annual Report
o Quarterly Review
o BIS Papers
o Working Papers
o Committee publications
o Conferences
o Other publications
o Asian research programme
* Statistics
o About BIS statistics
o Banking
o Securities
o Derivatives
o Effective exchange rates
o Foreign exchange
o External debt
o Payment systems
* Press & speeches
o Overview
o Press releases
o BIS management speeches
o Central bankers speeches
o BIS photo gallery
o Embargo area
o News archive
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
* History of the Committee
* Fact sheet
* Press releases
* Speeches
* Events
* Joint Forum
o History
o Mandate
* Working papers
* Newsletters
* Comments by BCBS
Publications by year
Publications by category
* Accounting and auditing
* Banking problems
* Basel Committee history and membership
* Basel I and Market Risk Amendment
* Basel II implementation
* Basel II new framework
* Concordat and cross-border issues
* Core Principles
* Credit risk and securitisation
* Liquidity risk
* Money laundering and terrorist financing
* Operational risk
* Other risks
* Risk management
* Transparency and disclosure
* BIS home
* Monetary & financial stability
* Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
About the Basel Committee
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides a forum for regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its objective is to enhance understanding of key supervisory issues and improve the quality of banking supervision worldwide. It seeks to do so by exchanging information on national supervisory issues, approaches and techniques, with a view to promoting common understanding. At times, the Committee uses this common understanding to develop guidelines and supervisory standards in areas where they are considered desirable. In this regard, the Committee is best known for its international standards on capital adequacy; the Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision; and the Concordat on cross-border banking supervision.
The Committee’s members come from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The present Chairman of the Committee is Mr Nout Wellink, President of the Netherlands Bank.
The Committee encourages contacts and cooperation among its members and other banking supervisory authorities. It circulates to supervisors throughout the world both published and unpublished papers providing guidance on banking supervisory matters. Contacts have been further strengthened by an International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) which takes place every two years.
The Committee’s Secretariat is located at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, and is staffed mainly by professional supervisors on temporary secondment from member institutions. In addition to undertaking the secretarial work for the Committee and its many expert sub-committees, it stands ready to give advice to supervisory authorities in all countries. Mr Stefan Walter is the Secretary General of the Basel Committee.
Main Expert Sub-Committees
The Committee’s work is organised under four main sub-committees (organisation chart):
* The Standards Implementation Group
* The Policy Development Group
* The Accounting Task Force
* The International Liaison Group
More information on each sub-committee is provided below.
The Standards Implementation Group (SIG) was originally established to share information and promote consistency in implementation of the Basel II Framework. In January 2009, its mandate was broadened to concentrate on implementation of Basel Committee guidance and standards more generally. It is chaired by Mr José María Roldán, Director General of Banking Regulation at the Bank of Spain.
Currently the SIG has two subgroups that share information and discuss specific issues related to Basel II implementation. The Validation Subgroup explores issues related to the validation of systems used to generate the ratings and parameters that serve as inputs into the internal ratings-based approaches to credit risk. The group is chaired by Mr Maarten Gelderman, Head of Quantitative Risk Management at the Netherlands Bank.
The Operational Risk Subgroup addresses issues related primarily to banks’ implementation of advanced measurement approaches for operational risk. Mr Kevin Bailey, Deputy Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, United States, chairs the group.
The primary objective of the Policy Development Group (PDG) is to support the Committee by identifying and reviewing emerging supervisory issues and, where appropriate, proposing and developing policies that promote a sound banking system and high supervisory standards. The group is chaired by Mr Stefan Walter, Secretary General of the Basel Committee.
Seven working groups report to the PDG: the Risk Management and Modelling Group (RMMG), the Research Task Force (RTF), the Working Group on Liquidity, the Definition of Capital Subgroup, a Basel II Capital Monitoring Group, the Trading Book Group (TBG) and the Cross-border Bank Resolution Group.
The Risk Management and Modelling Group serves as the Committee’s point of contact with the industry on the latest advances in risk measurement and management, and is chaired by Mr Klaas Knot, Director of Supervisory Policy at the Netherlands Bank. It focuses on assessing the range of industry risk management practices and the development of supervisory guidance to promote enhanced risk management practices.
The Research Task Force serves as a forum for research economists from member institutions to exchange information and engage in research projects on supervisory and financial stability issues. It also acts as a mechanism for facilitating communication between economists at member institutions and in the academic sector. It is co-chaired by Mr Myron Kwast, Senior Associate Director of the Division of Research and Statistics at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, United States, and Mr Peter Praet, Executive Director at the National Bank of Belgium and member of the Management Committee of the Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission, Belgium.
The Trading Book Group adresses issues relating to the application of Basel II to certain exposures arising from trading activities. A current focus of this group is the appropriate capital treatment of event risk in the trading book. It is co-chaired by Ms Norah Barger, Associate Director, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, United States, and Mr Thomas McGowan, Assistant Director, Securities and Exchange Commission, United States.
The Working Group on Liquidity serves as a forum for information exchange on national approaches to liquidity risk regulation and supervision. In September 2008, the Working Group issued Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision, the global standards for liquidity risk management and supervision. The Working Group is also examining the scope for additional steps to promote more robust and internationally consistent liquidity approaches for cross-border banks. The group is co-chaired by Mr Nigel Jenkinson, Executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of England, and Mr Marc Saidenberg, Senior Vice President in the Banking Supervision Group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, United States.
The Definition of Capital Subgroup explores emerging trends in eligible capital instruments in member jurisdictions. It currently is reviewing issues related to the quality, consistency and transparency of capital with a particular focus on Tier 1 capital. The group is co-chaired by Mr Hirotaka Hideshima, Director, Deputy Head of the International Affairs Section at the Bank of Japan, and Mr Richard Thorpe, Head of Capital Adequacy Policy Department and Accounting and Audit Sector Leader at the Financial Services Authority, United Kingdom.
In the course of implementation of Basel II, national supervisors are monitoring capital requirements to ensure that banks in their jurisdiction maintain a solid capital base throughout the economic cycle. The Basel Committee has established a Basel II Capital Monitoring Group that will from time to time share national experiences in monitoring capital requirements. This group is chaired by Mr Thilo Liebig, Head of Banking Supervision Research at the Deutsche Bundesbank.
Cross-border Bank Resolution Group: the CBRG is comparing the national policies, legal frameworks and the allocation of responsibilities for the resolution of banks with significant cross-border operations. It is co-chaired by Ms Eva Hüpkes, Head of Regulation, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), and Mr Michael H Krimminger, Special Advisor for Policy to the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The Accounting Task Force (ATF) works to help ensure that international accounting and auditing standards and practices promote sound risk management at financial institutions, support market discipline through transparency, and reinforce the safety and soundness of the banking system. To fulfil this mission, the task force develops prudential reporting guidance and takes an active role in the development of international accounting and auditing standards. Ms Sylvie Mathérat, Director of Financial Stability, Bank of France, chairs the ATF.
Three working groups report to the ATF: the Conceptual Framework Issues Subgroup, the Financial Instruments Practices Subgroup, and the Audit Subgroup. The Conceptual Framework Issues Subgroup monitors and responds to the conceptual accounting framework project of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board in the United States. The Subgroup is co-chaired by Mr Jerry Edwards, ATF member and Senior Advisor on Accounting and Auditing Policy, Bank for International Settlements, Switzerland, and Mr Patrick Amis, Head of Accounting Affairs, Commission Bancaire, France.
The Financial Instruments Practices Subgroup assesses implementation of international accounting standards related to financial instruments, and the links between accounting practices in this area and prudential supervision. The Subgroup is chaired by Mr Ian Michael, Technical Specialist, Accounting and Auditing Policy, Financial Services Authority, United Kingdom.
The Audit Subgroup promotes reliable financial information by exploring key audit issues from a banking supervision perspective. It focuses on responding to international audit standards-setting proposals, other issuances of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants, and audit quality issues. The Subgroup is chaired by Mr Marc Pickeur, Advisor for Supervisory Policy at the Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission, Belgium.
The newly established International Liaison Group (ILG) provides a forum for deepening the Committee’s engagement with supervisors around the world on a broader range of issues. It gathers senior representatives from eight Committee member countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States), 16 supervisory authorities that are not members of the Committee (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, and the West African Monetary Union), the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Financial Stability Institute , the Association of Supervisors of Banks of the Americas and the Islamic Financial Services Board. The ILG is chaired by Mr Giovanni Carosio, Deputy General Director, Bank of Italy.
Two working groups report to the ILG: the ILG working group on Capital (ILGC) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Expert Group (AML/CFT EG).
The ILGC is working together with the AIG on Basel II implementation issues and both groups regularly hold joint meetings. The ILGC is chaired by Mr Karl Cordewener, Deputy Secretary General of the Basel Committee.
The AML/CFT EG is responsible for monitoring AML/CFT issues that have a bearing on banking supervision. It is co-chaired by Mr Errol Kruger, Registrar of Banks and Executive General Manager, South African Reserve Bank, and Mr Edouard Fernandez-Bollo, Director of Legal Services, Commission Bancaire, France.
Coordination with other standard setters
Formal channels for coordinating with supervisors of non-bank financial institutions include the Joint Forum, for which the Basel Committee Secretariat provides the secretariat function, and the Coordination Group.
The Joint Forum was established in 1996 to address issues common to the banking, securities and insurance sectors, including the regulation of financial conglomerates. The Coordination Group is a senior group of supervisory standard setters comprising the Chairmen and Secretaries General of the Committee, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), as well as the Joint Forum Chairman and Secretariat. The Coordination Group meets twice annually to exchange views on the priorities and key issues of interest to supervisory standard setters. The position of chairman and the secretariat function for the Coordination Group rotate among the member representatives of the three standard setters every two years.
*** Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision
September 2008
Liquidity is the ability of a bank to fund increases in assets and meet obligations as they come due, without incurring unacceptable losses. The fundamental role of banks in the maturity transformation of short-term deposits into long-term loans makes banks inherently vulnerable to liquidity risk, both of an institution-specific nature and that which affects markets as a whole. Virtually every financial transaction or commitment has implications for a bank’s liquidity. Effective liquidity risk management helps ensure a bank’s ability to meet cash flow obligations, which are uncertain as they are affected by external events and other agents’ behaviour. Liquidity risk management is of paramount importance because a liquidity shortfall at a single institution can have system-wide repercussions. Financial market developments in the past decade have increased the complexity of liquidity risk and its management.
The market turmoil that began in mid-2007 re-emphasised the importance of liquidity to the functioning of financial markets and the banking sector. In advance of the turmoil, asset markets were buoyant and funding was readily available at low cost. The reversal in market conditions illustrated how quickly liquidity can evaporate and that illiquidity can last for an extended period of time. The banking system came under severe stress, which necessitated central bank action to support both the functioning of money markets and, in a few cases, individual institutions.
In February 2008 the Basel Committee on Banking supervision published Liquidity Risk Management and Supervisory Challenges. The difficulties outlined in that paper highlighted that many banks had failed to take account of a number of basic principles of liquidity risk management when liquidity was plentiful.
Many of the most exposed banks did not have an adequate framework that satisfactorily accounted for the liquidity risks posed by individual products and business lines, and therefore incentives at the business level were misaligned with the overall risk tolerance of the bank. Many banks had not considered the amount of liquidity they might need to satisfy contingent obligations, either contractual or non-contractual, as they viewed funding of these obligations to be highly unlikely. Many firms viewed severe and prolonged liquidity disruptions as implausible and did not conduct stress tests that factored in the possibility of market wide strain or the severity or duration of the disruptions. Contingency funding plans (CFPs) were not always appropriately linked to stress test results and sometimes failed to take account of the potential closure of some funding sources.
In order to account for financial market developments as well as lessons learned from the turmoil, the Basel Committee has conducted a fundamental review of its 2000 Sound Practices for Managing Liquidity in Banking Organisations. Guidance has been significantly expanded in a number of key areas. In particular, more detailed guidance is provided on:
* the importance of establishing a liquidity risk tolerance;
* the maintenance of an adequate level of liquidity, including through a cushion of
liquid assets;
* the necessity of allocating liquidity costs, benefits and risks to all significant business
activities;
* the identification and measurement of the full range of liquidity risks, including
contingent liquidity risks;
* the design and use of severe stress test scenarios;
* the need for a robust and operational contingency funding plan;
* the management of intraday liquidity risk and collateral; and
* public disclosure in promoting market discipline
Guidance for supervisors also has been augmented substantially. The guidance emphasises the importance of supervisors assessing the adequacy of a bank’s liquidity risk management framework and its level of liquidity, and suggests steps that supervisors should take if these are deemed inadequate. The principles also stress the importance of effective cooperation between supervisors and other key stakeholders, such as central banks, especially in times of stress.
This guidance focuses on liquidity risk management at medium and large complex banks, but the sound principles have broad applicability to all types of banks. The implementation of the sound principles by both banks and supervisors should be tailored to the size, nature of business and complexity of a bank’s activities. A bank and its supervisors also should consider the bank’s role in the financial sectors of the jurisdictions in which it operates and the bank’s systemic importance in those financial sectors. The Basel Committee fully expects banks and national supervisors to implement the revised principles promptly and thoroughly and the Committee will actively review progress in implementation.
This guidance is arranged around seventeen principles for managing and supervising liquidity risk.
***
Mark to market rules weren’t intended to make companies look bad – this rule intends to provide a realistic view of assets and their liquidity such that appropriate capitalization can be set up to insure viability and long-term survival for corporations, banks and financial institutions – and it works.
My note –
Where does it say to make up values for assets as companies damn well please to make it look like assets are liquid and available which are not?
Principles for Sound
Liquidity Risk
Management and
Supervision
September 2008
***
Financial Instruments Working Group
The Financial Instruments Working Group will help the IASB take a fresh look at the accounting standard IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement by examining and questioning the fundamentals of the standard within the context of the IASB’s Framework.
The review will therefore focus on improving, simplifying and ultimately replacing IAS 39 and will examine broader questions of the application and extent of fair value accounting, a topic on which the IASB has not reached any conclusion.
Although any major revision of IAS 39 may take several years to complete, the IASB is willing to revise the standard in the short term if any immediate solutions emerge from the working group’s discussions.
Members
* Melissa Allen, European Head of New Business and Technical Accounting Support Credit Suisse First Boston, United Kingdom
* Joseph Boateng, Chief Investment Officer, Casey Family Programs, United States
* Philippe Bordenave, Group Chief Financial Officer, BNP, France
* Gunther Gebhardt, Professor, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Germany
* Mark Kirkland, Vice President, Corporate Treasury, Philips, The Netherlands
* Leanne Leong, General Manager, Capital Management & Securitisation, Commonwealth Bank, Australia
* François Masquelier, Head of Corporate Finance and Treasury, RTL, France * Esther Mills, Managing Director, Accounting Standards and Controls, Morgan Stanley, United States
* Ralph Odermatt, Managing Director, Head of Group Accounting Policies and Support, UBS, Switzerland * Russell Picot, Group Chief Accounting Officer, HSBC, United Kingdom
* Kristian Pullola, Director, Treasury Finance & Control, Nokia Corporation, Switzerland
* Francis Ruijgt, ING Group Corporate Insurance Risk Management, Deputy Chief Insurance Risk Officer International Actuarial Association/ING Group, The Netherlands
* Yoshio Sato, Partner in Financial Industries Group, Deloitte, Japan
* Elisabeth Schmalfuss, Head of Accounting and Controlling Policies, Siemens, Germany
* Sadaki Takagi, Senior Director for Bank Accounting, Japanese Bankers Association, Japan * Bob Uhl, Managing Director, Accounting Policy, Goldman, Sachs & Co., United States
* Pauline Wallace, Partner in IFRS Services, PwC, United Kingdom
Observers
* Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
* European Central Bank
* European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)
* International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS)
* International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
* Representative from the Insurance Working Group
***
A map of how the mark to market rule suspension being voted today is being bought and will deepen the US and Global Economic Crisis just to make poorly run insolvent business gamblers look good temporarily
Worlds largest reinsurer Swiss Re outgoing Chairman Peter Forstmoser (R) and designated Chairman Walter Kielholz shake hands at the end of the annual general meeting of the company in Zurich March 13, 2009. Troubled reinsurer Swiss Re should be able to generate enough funds to buy back convertible bonds issued to Warren Buffetts Berkshire. (Picture caption)
Swiss Re, the world’s second-largest reinsurer, is to cut almost 1,000 jobs worldwide.
The company said it was reducing its workforce by about 10%.
The Zurich-based company said as well as cutting costs, it wanted to centralise its operations.
Swiss Re intends to reduce its current global headcount of 11,560 by approximately 10% over the next 12 months, a company statement said.
Analysts said the cut was expected.
It is not unexpected, the company had already announced it wanted to cut costs and now we know where the savings will come from, said ZKB analyst Georg Marti.
The company wants to centralise its business more so the impact on sales will hopefully be limited.
The job cuts are expected to focus mainly on back office and similar functions rather than on the company’s relationship managers.
Swiss Re shares are set to opened 2% higher on the news.
2:30pm UK, Thursday April 02, 2009
Nearly 1,000 jobs are being axed at aircraft maker Bombardier in Belfast, Sky sources have said.
The figure is on top of 300 jobs that were axed earlier this year, taking the job total toll to just under 1,300 for 2009.
Canadian-owned Bombardier produces planes for a worldwide market.
The firm, which is struggling with £27m of debts, specialises in small and medium-sized aircraft for regional markets, and is best known for its Learjet executive plane.
It has appointed Begbies Traynor as administrators of the business.
Three directors – Rupert Lowe, Andrew Cowen and Michael Wilde – have resigned with immediate effect.
***
Mar 30,2009 Job Cuts Mount In Financial Sector
10:18am UK, Monday March 30, 2009
Workers in the financial services industry are losing their jobs at the fastest rate since 1993.
A survey by business lobby group CBI and PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the number of people employed in financial services fell dramatically in the three months to early March.
And staff turnover fell for the fourth quarter in a row due to nervousness about switching jobs and a shortage of vacancies.
The survey revealed a sixth successive heavy quarterly decline in business volumes, with only 9% of financial services firms saying volumes had risen and 56% reporting a drop.
The CBI also reported steep falls in profitability, while investment plans have been scaled back.
Among major job reduction announcements in the period, RSA Insurance said it would axe 1,200 UK jobs by the middle of next year, while RBS also announced it planned to cull 2,300 jobs.
January saw Barclays slash 2,130 positions in investment banking and investment management, and announce it was in consultations over a further 2,100 cuts in retail, commercial banking and credit card divisions.
Ian McCafferty, CBI chief economic adviser, said: Conditions remain exceptionally tough in the financial services sector, and have not been helped by equity markets having fallen further since our last survey in December.
Sharp drops in revenues and profitability are causing continued suffering, while business volumes remain very weak.
Firms are making heavy cuts to staff numbers and investment plans to make savings and reflect weak demand.
3:50pm UK, Thursday April 02, 2009
Insurance giant Aviva has confirmed it is to axe 1,700 jobs.
Aviva is carrying out a review of its operations
The company said the positions would go at York, Sheffield and Norwich.
Norwich Union Life, which is owned by Aviva, said 1,100 permanent jobs by the end of the year, while a further 590 contract positions would end in the next few months.
The company said 349 permanent and 222 contract jobs would be cut in York, 226 permanent and 254 contract jobs in Norwich, 54 permanent and 43 contract jobs in Sheffield and 35 permanent and 68 contract posts in Eastleigh, Hampshire.
Most of the job cuts are in business change and IT, with the rest spread across other areas of the company.
Derek Simpson, the union’s joint leader, said: The announcement by Aviva to cut 1,100 staff will cause alarm across the insurance industry.
Today we see a scenario where a company that is continuing to deliver positive results is slashing the staff that have enabled them to weather the current financial storm.
Unite is angry that Aviva is repeating what appears to be an annual exercise of cutting thousands of staff.
He added: It is unacceptable that once again shareholders received their full dividends, while the workers who brought the company this success are rewarded with job losses.
The Aviva workforce is continuing to live under constant uncertainty about their future.
Unite has been told that these job losses are unrelated to the economic downturn.
New Accounting Rules for Mortgage-Backed Securities
By FLOYD NORRIS 1 minute ago
The new guidelines could reduce the losses banks have been forced to report as the values of their securities have crumbled.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: April 2, 2009
A once-obscure accounting rule that infuriated banks, who blamed it for worsening the financial crisis, was changed Thursday to give banks more discretion in reporting the value of mortgage securities.
The change seems likely to allow banks to report higher profits by assuming that the securities are worth more than anyone is now willing to pay for them. But critics objected that the change could further damage the credibility of financial institutions by enabling them to avoid recognizing losses from bad loans they have made.
Critics also said that since the rules were changed under heavy political pressure, the move compromised the independence of the organization that did it, the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
During the financial crisis, the market prices of many securities, particularly those backed by subprime home mortgages, have plunged to fractions of their original prices. That has forced banks to report hundreds of billions of dollars in losses over the last year, because some of those securities must be reported at market value each three months, with the bank showing a profit or loss based on the change.
Bankers bitterly complained that the current market prices were the result of distressed sales and that they should be allowed to ignore those prices and value the securities instead at their value in a normal market. At first FASB, pronounced FAS-bee, resisted making changes, but that changed within a few days of a Congressional hearing at which legislators from both parties demanded the board act.
“There is a perception that we are yielding to political pressure,” one board member, Lawrence W. Smith, said as he voted for the changes.
“We are an independent standard setter, and it is important that we maintain our independence,” Mr. Smith added. “At the same time, how can we ignore what is going on around us?”
A group headed by two former chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission, one who served under President Bill Clinton and one who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said that it feared that politicization of accounting standards would destroy the credibility of the board.
It is not clear how much bank profits will improve as a result of the change; that will depend on how much the banks use their newly approved discretion to set values. Nor is it clear whether investors will put much faith in the new figures.
Early answers to those questions may become available within a few weeks. The board said banks could apply the new rules to their financial statements for the quarter that ended this week.
One major bank, Citigroup, said the new standard would not cause any change in its statements.
It is rare that the application of an accounting rule becomes a political issue, but that happened this year in both the United States and Europe, where the International Accounting Standards Board held an emergency meeting to change its rule after such a move was demanded by the French president.
In the United States, FASB acknowledged the investor criticism of the rules the board proposed after the Congressional hearing and responded on Thursday by voting to require banks to make additional disclosures about the assets in question.
The five-member board approved three changes to the rules, two by unanimous votes and one with two dissents. That disputed change makes it possible for banks to keep some declines in asset values off their income statements.
Robert H. Herz, the board’s chairman and the man who faced the Congressional pressure, said he voted for the changes because he thought the improved disclosures would help investors.
Mr. Smith said he had considered changing his vote as recently as Thursday morning. That would have led to the defeat of one change sought by the banks and perhaps set off a confrontation with Congress. “But,” he said, “I ultimately decided this is an improvement, because we have significantly improved the amount of information” being disclosed.
The American Bankers Association, which pushed legislators to demand the board make changes, praised the board. “Today’s decision should improve information for investors by providing more accurate estimates of market values,” said Edward Yingling, the association’s president.
One change adopted by the board would require banks to disclose the effect of the changed interpretation, although the final wording has not been released and it is not clear how detailed that disclosure will be.
For some other assets, banks must write them down to market value only if they conclude that the decline is “other than temporary.” The measure that drew dissents will allow banks to keep part of such declines off their income statements, although the decline would still show on the institutions’ balance sheets.
One of the dissenters, Thomas J. Linsmeier, argued that accounting rules already allowed the “fiction all banks are well capitalized,” adding that the changes would “make them seem better capitalized.”
The adoption of the rules was widely expected. It came on the same day that the stock market soared, but that rally began in Asia, well before the board met, and seemed to be tied to indications that the world economy might no longer be getting worse, even if recovery was not imminent.
While it was the banks who pressed for the rule, it will affect all financial institutions. But the board said it would make small changes to assure that it did not change accounting in mutual funds, which must mark their assets to market value every day.
Bank regulators already have the power to adjust accounting in computing capital, and some investor groups argued they should do that, rather than give the banks more freedom to value assets at what they think they should be worth, rather than what someone will pay for them.
The board added to the latest rule a statement that the goal of reflecting market value remained the same, but the rules will still allow more judgment by managers, and thus gives them more ability to control the numbers they report.
The vote drew condemnation from an organization called the Investors Working Group, and the two former S.E.C. chairman who lead it — William H. Donaldson, appointed by the second President Bush, and Arthur Levitt Jr., who served in the Clinton administration.
“In order to create high-quality accounting standards, it is critical that the process be independent and free from political pressure,” the group said in a statement. “This will ensure that such standards are neutral and faithfully represent economic reality. To the extent that these new FASB proposals reduce the free flow of transparent and reliable financial information, they undermine investor interests and weaken their ability to make sound investment decisions.”
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision
September 2008 Fundamental principle for the management and supervision of liquidity risk Principle 1
A bank is responsible for the sound management of liquidity risk. A bank should establish a robust liquidity risk management framework that ensures it maintains sufficient liquidity, including a cushion of unencumbered, high quality liquid assets, to withstand a range of stress events, including those involving the loss or impairment of both unsecured and secured funding sources.
Supervisors should assess the adequacy of both a bank’s liquidity risk management framework and its liquidity position and should take prompt action if a bank is deficient in either area in order to protect depositors and to limit potential damage to the financial system.
8.
A bank should establish a robust liquidity risk management framework that is well integrated into the bank-wide risk management process.
A primary objective of the liquidity risk management framework should be to ensure with a high degree of confidence that the firm is in a position to both address its daily liquidity obligations and withstand a period of liquidity stress affecting both secured and unsecured funding, the source of which could be bank-specific or market-wide.
In addition to maintaining sound liquidity risk governance and management practices, as discussed further below, a bank should hold an adequate liquidity cushion comprised of readily marketable assets to be in a position to survive such periods of liquidity stress.
A bank should demonstrate that its liquidity cushion is commensurate with the complexity of its on- and off-balance sheet activities, the liquidity of its assets and liabilities, the extent of its funding mismatches and the diversity of its business mix and funding strategies.
A bank should use appropriately conservative assumptions about the marketability of assets and its access to funding, both secured and unsecured, during periods of stress. Moreover, a bank should not allow competitive pressures to compromise the integrity of its liquidity risk management, control functions, limit systems and liquidity cushion.
***
Thursday, April 2, 2009, 12:47pm CDT New unemployment claims continues rise
Nashville Business Journal
The number of people filling new unemployment claims rose to the highest level in more than 25 years in the week ending March 28.
Seasonally adjusted initial claims was 669,000 nationally for the week, an increase of 12,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 657,000, according to figures released Thursday by the U.S. Labor Department.
The four-week moving average was 656,750, an increase of 6,500 from the previous week’s revised average of 650,250.
State data released for the week ending March 21 showed Tennessee had 11,307 new jobless claims, down 2,707 from the week earlier, but 6,548 higher than a year earlier.
The four-week moving average of those collecting unemployment benefits in Tennessee has risen to 116,868. In February, the state had a total unemployment rate of 9.1 percent, with a seasonally adjusted 12.5 million unemployed people in the state. The national unemployment rate for February was 8.4 percent.
The seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate — the percentage of the workforce collecting unemployment benefits — was 4.3 percent for the week ending March 21, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week.
The number of seasonally adjusted insured unemployed during the week was 5,728,000, an increase of 161,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 5,567,000. The 4-week moving average was 5,496,500, an increase of 163,500 from the preceding week’s revised average of 5,333,000.
The fiscal year-to-date average for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment for all programs is 4.7 million.
*** Foreclosure Surge in Feb. is “Surprising,” RealtyTrac Says
By PAUL JACKSON March 13, 2009 8:13 AM CST
Advertisements
Foreclosures nationwide surged 6 percent from January levels, and were up 30 percent from year-ago, according to data released Thursday morning by RealtyTrac, which provides nationwide listings of properties in foreclosure and owned by banks.
The company’s data showed that foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions — were reported on 290,631 U.S. properties during the month, compared to 274,399 one month earlier.
The increase in foreclosure activity from January to February is somewhat surprising, given that many of the foreclosure prevention efforts and moratoria in place in January were extended through most of February as well,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac.
Saccacio highlighted the effects of recent legislation in the foreclosure data, as well, including a 45-day voluntary moratorium in Florida expired at the end of January; foreclosure activity there was up 14 percent from the previous month, as a result. And New York saw foreclosures surge 23 percent, after a new state law had delayed the foreclosure process by an extra 90 days.
Nationally, the increase in what’s called “foreclosure activity” was actually driven by two components — new borrower defaults and an increase in reported REO inventory. Actual foreclosure sales appear to have decreased, owing to the effect of new and pending legislation that is increasingly seeking to keep borrowers in their homes at almost any cost. Notice of Defaults and Lis Pendens — the first step in the foreclosure process — increased 10.6 percent between January and February, while reported REO volume increased 5.9 percent. In contrast, Notices of Trustee Sale and Notices of Foreclosure Sale — the final step in foreclosure that signals a courthouse auction is imminent — actually fell 1.4 percent.
Foreclosure filings were reported on 80,775 California properties in February, RealtyTrac said, the most of any state and a 5 percent increase from the previous month. The state’s foreclosure activity increased 51 percent from February 2008, with auction sale notices increasing nearly 179 percent — the most of any category on a year-over-year basis.
Florida and Arizona continued to rank second and third in overall foreclosure volume, according to the report.
Write to Paul Jackson at paul.jackson@housingwire.com.
*** Impac’s future could resemble Thornburg’s fall
[Posted on April 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM]
The two mortgage lenders are ailing and their prospects for continued survival amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression are dimming.
Another mortgage company bites the dust. Thornburg Mortgage Inc. said Wednesday that it expects to file for Chapter 11, close shop and sell off its remaining assets. While the news is not surprising, the market has forced many to refocus their businesses or face extinction.
There’s not many public mortgage lenders left as the sector has contracted in step with the downfall of residential real estate. Meanwhile, the few who’ve survived and restructured still have an uphill road ahead of them. One such company and former Thornburg competitor is Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. (OTC:IMPM).
Although Impac Mortgage CEO Joseph Tomkinson pledged in 2007 his company would not go bankrupt, it’s hard to see why not. The mortgage lender has fallen to a penny stock and was forced in August 2007 to get out of its primary bread-and butter of investing primarily in non-conforming Alt-A residential loans, and to a lesser extent, small balance commercial and multifamily loans. Alt-A and its riskier cousin sub-prime are the type of mortgages that helped sink the mortgage industry and sicken the rest of the financial services industry.
Although Impac has moved on to offer new services that include asset management, escrow services and financial consulting, the restructuring, however, might be too little too late. Despite registering a stronger third-quarter in November compared to the same year-ago period, it still reported a net loss of $16.2 million, or $0.26 per diluted shared. In the third quarter 2007, Impac recorded a staggering net loss of $1.2 billion or $15.70 per share.
What the company does have in cash is $24.5 million as of September from a buyout of an advisory services agreement. The amount, however, seems paltry compared to its precarious situation. Impac’s recent entrance into new sectors within the mortgage industry seem plausible but it will take a long time to make inroads in these areas as Americans are buying less homes and becoming more conservative with their finances. – Gerald Magpily
The company that owns the Chicago Sun-Times and 58 other newspapers and online sites said Tuesday it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Wednesday, 01 April 2009 12:44
The Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. said it would continue to operate its newspapers and Web sites as usual while it improves its cost structure and stabilizes operations.
The company that owns the Chicago Sun-Times and 58 other newspapers and online sites said Tuesday it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Tuesday’s announcement comes amid a raft of newspaper closings and cuts that has seen the end of print editions of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado; The Seattle Post-Intelligencer; and The Christian Science Monitor.
The Rocky Mountain News shut down completely; both the Seattle paper and the Christian Science Monitor remain in online editions.
The chain that owns the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune is in bankruptcy and other papers are on the brink. And two industry giants, The Washington Post and The New York Times, announced last week they are cutting costs and staff amid tumbling revenue and continued economic decline.
The Sun-Times said similar cost-cutting measures failed to turn around the company’s fortunes.
“The significant downturn in the print advertising environment that has affected newspapers across the country has continued to severely impact us,” said Jeremy Halbreich, chairman and interim chief executive of the Sun-Times Media Group. “Unfortunately, this deteriorating economic climate, coupled with a significant, pending IRS tax liability dating back to previous management, has led us to today’s difficult action.”
Halbreich said the company would explore the potential sale of assets or new investment in the company to help it remain viable.
At least 120 newspapers in the United States have shut down since January 2008, according to Paper Cuts, a Web site tracking the newspaper industry. More than 21,000 jobs at 67 newspapers have vaporized in that time, according to the site.
Newspapers have struggled to meet challenges posed by changing reader habits, a shifting advertising market, an anemic economy, and the newspaper industry’s own early strategic errors.
“We provide the area’s best source of local news and information and remain committed to continuing to serve our readers, advertisers, and communities,” Halbreich said. “We have enjoyed a long, rich history in the Chicago area and our goal is to preserve and sustain these strong print and online news and information assets that are such an integral part of the fabric of Chicago and its neighboring communities.”
The company said it expects the Chapter 11 process to be completed this year.
The changes proposed on March 16 to fair-value, also known as mark-to-market accounting, would allow companies to use “significant judgment” in valuing assets and reduce the amount of writedowns they must take on so-called impaired investments, including mortgage-backed securities. A final vote on the resolutions, which would apply to first-quarter financial statements, is scheduled for April 2.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), formerly known as the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), is a mid-20th century creation. The Convention which established the IMCO was adopted in Geneva in 1948,[1] but it only came into force ten years later; and the new Organization met for the first time the following year in 1959. The IMCO name was changed to IMO in 1982.[2]
Headquartered in London, in the United Kingdom, the IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations with 168 Member States and three Associate Members.[2] The IMO’s primary purpose is to develop and maintain a comprehensive regulatory framework for shipping and its remit today includes safety, environmental concerns, legal matters, technical co-operation, maritime security and the efficiency of shipping. IMO is governed by an Assembly of members and is financially administered by a Council of members elected from the Assembly. The work of IMO is conducted through five committees and these are supported by technical subcommittees.
The IMO is supported by a permanent secretariat of employees who are representative of its members. The secretariat is composed of a Secretary-General who is periodically elected by the Assembly, and various divisions such as those for marine safety, environmental protection, and a conference section.
IMO is the source of approximately 60 legal instruments that guide the regulatory development of its member states to improve safety at sea, facilitate trade among seafaring states and protect the maritime environment. The most well known is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
IMO regularly enacts regulations, which are broadly enforced by national and local maritime authorities in member countries, such as the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG). The IMO has also enacted a Port State Control (PSC) authority, allowing domestic maritime authorities such as coast guards to inspect foreign-flag ships calling at ports of the many port states. Memoranda of Understanding (protocols) were signed by some countries unifying Port State Control procedures among the signatories.
Current issues
Recent initiatives at the IMO have included amendments to SOLAS, which upgraded fire protection standards on passenger ships, the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) which establishes basic requirements on training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers and to the Convention on the Prevention of Maritime Pollution (MARPOL 73/78), which required double hulls on all tankers. All these initiatives were instigated by representatives of the United States before the IMO.
In December 2002, new amendments to the 1974 SOLAS Convention were enacted. These amendments gave rise to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, which went into effect on 1 July 2004. The concept of the code is to provide layered and redundant defenses against smuggling, terrorism, piracy, stowaways, etc. The ISPS Code required most ships and port facilities engaged in international trade to establish and maintain strict security procedures as specified in ship and port specific Ship Security Plans and Port Facility Security Plans.
The IMO is also responsible for publishing the International Code of Signals for use between merchant and naval vessels.
The First Intersessional Meeting of IMO’s Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships is currently taking place in Oslo, Norway (23-27 June, 2008), tasked with developing the technical basis for the reduction mechanisms that may form part of a future IMO regime to control greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, and a draft of the actual reduction mechanisms themselves, for further consideration by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). [3]
ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) research indicates that acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships in the second quarter of 2007 have jumped by 37% when compared to the second quarter of 2006.
Top
12-07-2007 11:47:16 GMT
The International Chamber of Commerce’s International Maritime Bureau (IMB) has launched an online piracy map which gives users a visual on the nature and location of attacks to help them better understand and track incidents.
Top
01-09-2006 9:52:46 GMT
2003 – 2008 Petrospot Limited: The content of this web site is copyright by Petrospot Limited.
Climate factors, international cooperation key to saving Aral Sea …
Earthtimes (press release) – ?May 1, 2009?
… of the related UN convention, was released today. It describes the development of a consultative process to deal with matters ranging from piracy to the …
**
History of the chamber movement
The long history of the chamber movement can be traced back to 1599, when the term “chamber of commerce” appeared for the first time, in Marseille, France.
Moving beyond individual interests to that of a collective group, the establishment of chambers provided merchants, traders, craftsmen and industrialists a public forum to discuss issues facing them as a business community. This representation of common interests became, and remains, the foundation of chambers of commerce worldwide.
Gaining acceptance from public authorities also helped the chamber cause. Public authorities rapidly established close dialogue with chambers, seeing them as the legitimate and institutionalized common voice of business.
Today, chambers of commerce exist in almost every country of the world.
Chambers of commerce today are diverse in name as in the business communities they represent. The word “chamber” is still predominantly used in most countries. No longer just chambers of “commerce” and “industry”, chambers are also including words like “manufacturers”, “entrepreneurship”, “training”, “shipping”, “commodity exchanges”, “agriculture” to help reflect the community they serve.
Chambers have been established along bilateral lines (eg. Swedish British Chamber of Commerce) as well as community and special interest chamber groups eg. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce, and the Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Transnational associations of chambers are also a feature of our landscape, such as the Confederation of Asia Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Association of Latin American Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
However, as diverse as the name has become, as well as the cross-section of interests they represent and their methods, the common goal remains – the support of business enterprises. Chambers are still the most important type of multi-sectoral business organizations in the world.
While chambers of commerce have evolved and grown based upon a nation’s own historical context, two basic models prevail.
The “continental” or “public law” model is founded on the remains of medieval guilds. From its origins in France, chambers were established quickly across other European countries like Austria, Germany, Italy, Slovenia and Spain. This type of chamber is called “public law” as it is established and regulated by national legislation. A key characteristic is that under most “public law” chamber systems, membership is mandatory for all enterprises.
Public law chambers are generally found on the European continent as well as French speaking Africa and other former French colonies. Other countries like North Korea, Bhutan, as well as the majority of Arab nations fall under this model.
The predominate model in the world is the “private law” or “Anglo-Saxon” model originated in Great Britain and spread to other countries influenced by British tradition. It is also prominent in the Nordic countries. Reflecting more the “laissez faire” economic policies of these nations, chambers are established by the desires and needs of their local business community. These chambers are not created and governed by public statute, but are established under private law requiring only registration in the business or association registers.
Private law models are found in Great Britain, other countries of the British Commonwealth, North America, Scandinavia, Belgium and Switzerland.
While most chambers can be classified as one of these two models, some countries have incorporated features of both systems more compatible with their own political and economic development. Such hydrid models can be found in China, Cuba, Paraguay as well as other Latin American countries, Singapore and Vietnam. Though established by national legislation, the chambers operate with voluntary membership systems.
Footnote
A worldwide history of the chamber of commerce movement is currently being written by the WCF. Chambers are encouraged to send any information they may have on the chamber movement in their region to help us with the development and regular revisions of this document.
ICC – International Chamber of Commerce – concerned trade finance may suffer due to proposed bank leverage rules
Paris, 4 May 2010 ICC has expressed concern that proposals to introduce a new framework to limit excessive leverage in the world’s banking system may have unintended, negative consequences on trade finance, and it urged the creation of a special trade finance working group to examine the problem.
I have a copy of an article somewhere – I’ll find it and I’ve already put it in an earlier post which explains that because the US has not signed the Treaty of the Sea – other nations are divvying up the Arctic for oil drilling there and leaving us with no say in the matter whatsoever and no rights either.
– cricketdiane
But the GOP doesn’t want that Treaty signed by the US. (note article below) –
***
GOP ‘Sovereignty Caucus’ Battles Obama on Treaties
Small But Influential Coalition of Hawks Holds Surprising Sway Over International Agreements
By David Weigel 7/1/09 11:53 AM
An anti-Law of the Sea Treaty ad from the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty (YouTube)
An anti-Law of the Sea Treaty ad from the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty (YouTube)
Shortly after leaving their offices on June 24, dozens of Hill staffers, foreign policy experts, and old Washington hands made their way to the lower floor of the Capitol Visitors Center, a sprawling complex below the halls of Congress. The occasion was the low-key launch of the new House Sovereignty Caucus, the project of three Republican members — Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) — who had become more and more worried about Americans ceding their rights to foreign institutions. Retired Lt. Col. Oliver North and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith stopped by to make remarks and pose for photos. Patrick Henry College Chancellor Michael Farris made small talk near a table of fruits, vegetables and soft cheeses.
Image by: Matt Mahurin
Image by: Matt Mahurin
“I have said for years that we ought to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.,” said Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), addressing the crowd in an impromptu speech. “I’ll do everything I can in the Congress to maintain the U.S. as a sovereign nation, subservient to no one but the almighty God.”
A series of traffic delays meant that, Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center For Security Policy, was the last supporter of the new caucus to give a speech. He bemoaned the confirmation of Harold Koh as Legal Adviser to the State Department, an “enemy” of sovereignty, shortly after the Senate had agreed to move ahead to a vote on his nomination. But he was optimistic. “We may now have in the House a vehicle for keeping the so-called ‘Upper House’ more honest on these issues.”
While Republicans and conservative activists were disappointed by the confirmation of Koh, the long delay leading up to the vote and its relative closeness — 65 to 31 to end debate on the nomination and 62-35 to confirm him — have boosted their hopes of successfully battling treaties that they characterize as threats to American rights and national interests. Treaties need the votes of 67 senators to be ratified, and can gum up the business of the Senate for weeks if they become flash points for controversy. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, has convinced Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) — a member of the House Sovereignty Caucus — to introduce a Constitutional amendment protecting the right of American parents to discipline their children and send them to religious schools.
Those hopes are likely to be tested at least twice this year. According to staffers for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty — a 1982 treaty that governs the right of countries to use the oceans — could be reintroduced next month. And President Obama is in Russia this week in part to move forward the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the 1996 agreement on weapons testing that was rejected by the Senate in 1999, when the upper chamber contained 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Of the 16 treaties that the State Department included on its priority list in a May 11 letter to the committee, both sides agree that these two will be the first to face full votes. And both sides agree that the Koh vote provided a good idea of the support these treaties might command from a very skeptical Senate Republican conference.
“The vote against Harold Koh is probably the minimum vote against both of those treaties,” said John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, and who has been a forceful critic of both treaties. “I think that a lot of Republicans, whether they agreed or disagreed with Koh’s views, basically agreed that president had the right to appoint his own team. Whether they would also support these treaties, given their concerns about national sovereignty, is another question.”
The power to approve treaties rests entirely with the Senate; on the surface, that would seem to make the House Sovereignty Caucus and its supporters less relevant. But both supporters and opponents of the treaties said that skeptics of international law and international agreements will have an outsized influence in this debate. Senate staffers from both parties, experts from liberal groups, and experts from conservative groups all cited the same handful of people as the ones able to turn opinion on treaties: Bolton, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and fellows at the Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). For an example of their influence, one supporter of the treaties pointed out what happens when someone does a basic Google search for “Law of the Sea.” The first links include the Heritage Foundation’s page on the treaty, CEI’s page, and the site UNLawoftheSeaTreaty.org, owned by another think tank that opposes the treaty.
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, said that there was some truth to this characterization. “At the one end, the American people are very suspicious of more United Nations involvement in their lives,” said Ebell. “When you’re saying that you’ll put the UN in charge of the oceans, that’s pretty strongly opposed by the American people. But at the other end, most Washington insiders, a lot of experts who work on this, a lot of admirals, say we ought to do that and say that the problems have been fixed since President Reagan opposed it. So we’re not a very broad coalition.”
Treaty supporters, who had hoped that a Democratic president and heavily Democratic Senate could get past this standoff, are frustrated by the conservatives’ success. “The fight over the Law of the Sea has been a textbook example of the politics of intensity trumping the politics of common sense,” said Don Kraus, the CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, a group that supports both treaties. “The treaty’s narrow group of opponents have whipped up conspiracy theories to feed political temper tantrums in swing states.”
While negotiations that could lead to progress on the CTBT are taking center stage this week, treaty opponents are focusing on the Law of the Sea Treaty because it will come up first, and because its fate in the last Congress provided a roadmap for both sides. A tough campaign against the treaty, which included TV ads from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and pressure on conservative senators like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), whittled down its support. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had long supported the treaty, backed down and said that it needed “changes” shortly before the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primary.
According to Baker Spring, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, opposition to international law and treaties like these has coalesced in the wake of the campaign against the Law of the Sea Treaty and because of worries about President Barack Obama. “We have a president in office who is potentially serious about this agenda. Nobody held the view that George W. Bush was going to scurry down a road that would undermine our national sovereignty.”
Spring suggested that Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, slow-walked the treaty last year because he wanted to get a majority of Republicans on board. Lugar spokesman Mark would not confirm that, but he pointed out that so far the Obama administration’s support for the treaty is comparable to the Bush administration’s — just one of the items on the priority list. “The Obama campaign was fantastic at using social networking to organize and build up grassroots support,” said Hayes. “The administration has chosen to use that skill on some campaigns, like the health care push, but not on other campaigns.”
Unless that happens, skeptics of international law suggested that high-visibility coalitions like the House Sovereignty Caucus can win the argument.
“I think it can have a real impact if it raises the volume of the debate,” said John Bolton. “The higher the salience of the issue, for conservatives in particular, the greater the likelihood that people will oppose these treaties.”
These are the same people that gave our United States sovereignty away to the oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska, across our national lands and our national coastal waters – both offshore and onshore.
– cricketdiane, 06-09-10
***
Research Shows Little Effect From Arctic Offshore Oil Drilling …
Oct 3, 2003 … “In fact, the entire offshore area was near pristine. … 2008) — The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels … Oil Exploration In Arctic Highly Risky: ‘Response Gap’ In Case Of Oil Spill, … http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031002055859.htm
Arctic Circle’s oil-rich seabeds: Off-limits to the U.S.? – Aug. 8 …
Aug 8, 2007 … Melting icecaps in the Arctic Circle are giving way to oil-rich waters … a drilling industry lobbyist, “and I think now we’ll finally get …
money.cnn.com/2007/…/arctic_oil…/index.htm
Time to Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge | The Heritage …
Time to Permit Oil Drilling In the Arctic Refuge … ANWR is an enormous area of land located in the Northeast corner of Alaska within the Arctic Circle. … http://www.heritage.org/…/Time-to-Permit-Oil-Drilling-In-the-Arctic-Refuge
(my note – I hate them – they won’t be happy until the United States is nothing but a wasteland where no man, woman, child, elderly, family, community, bird, animal, fish, mammal, clean air, clean water, clean earth can exist for the rest of eternity. They are genuinely and considerately wrong over and over and over again, and it just doesn’t seem to matter – even as their policies destroy and decimate and obliterate and ultimately destroy our country in fact. – cricketdiane, 06-09-10)
# Putin Tries to Lay Claim to Arctic Circle – Associated Content …
Jun 28, 2007 … In the past, any country could drill for oil and mine in the arctic … The Arctic is very heavy in oil supply. If Russia were able to take … http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/…/putin_tries_to_lay_claim_to_arctic.html
# Petroleum exploration in the Arctic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 Canada; 2 Russia; 3 Greenland; 4 Geological basins in the Arctic … of the arctic circle) could contain up to 110 billion barrels (17×10^9 m3) of oil. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the_Arctic
# Arctic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Battle for the Next Energy Frontier: The Russian Polar Expedition and the Future of … “The great Arctic Circle oil rush.” CNN. August 8, 2007. ^ Shaw, Rob. …. Arctic Refuge drilling controversy • Parks, reserves and refuges …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic
#
Parker Drilling Company
… in Russia and has developed a productive oil field north of the Arctic Circle. … Houston-based Parker Drilling Co. was the first drilling company granted a … “Putin wants to develop Russia’s oil industry fast to get the economy … http://www.parkerdrilling.com/newsroom/coverage_putin.html
# EIA – Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Potential
Region within the Arctic Circle (North America is to the left and … Large Arctic oil and natural gas discoveries began in Russia with the discovery …. Shell had reactivated and towed the Kulluk arctic drilling ship to the Beaufort … http://www.eia.doe.gov › … › Natural Gas Analysis Reports
# Oil and Gas Production and Exploration Companies
Circle Oil Plc – is an oil and gas exploration, development and …. CJSC – Development of oil and gas fields on Russia’s Arctic continental shelf … http://www.subsea.org/equipment/exploration+and…/listcat.asp
# Offshore Drilling: An Arctic Future
May 4, 2010 … But we’ve been drilling under water since 1947, and we’re not going … 400 oil and gas fields north of the Arctic Circle in Canada, Russia … http://www.investingdaily.com/ce/…/offshore-drilling-an-arctic-future.html
***
Cruise Ships Dumping Tons Of Waste In Caribbean Waters
by Dionne Jackson Miller
(IPS) KINGSTON — The multi-million dollar Caribbean shipping industry, necessary to the economic prosperity of the region’s small island states, also has its negative side: the generation of tons of waste, which these countries are often ill-prepared to cope with.
The Caribbean has the ‘most intensive maritime traffic in the world,’ with some 50,000 ships and 14.5 million tourists visiting annually, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
A typical cruise ship carries 3,000 passengers and produces between 400 and 1,200 cubic metres of watery waste daily, including waste from kitchens and showers, according to UNEP.
‘They don’t have the facilities to accept ship waste, and more importantly, lack the necessary resources and organizational structure to monitor ships,” whether cargo or passenger vessels, Ian Blair, senior vice president of the Jamaican Port Authority, told Tierramerica.
There are major concerns related to the disposal of ship-generated garbage, oily bilge water (water accumulated in part of the ship’s hull) and ballast water, which is taken in by ships to increase their stability and manoeuvrability while in transit.
Oily waste and garbage affect water quality and marine life, and ballast water carries into the region organisms from far-flung places, which can alter ecosystems and hurt biodiversity, Cowell Lyn, a consultant working on a rehabilitation project for Jamaica’s Kingston Harbor, explained to Tierramerica.
Invasive species threaten the existence of endemic flora and fauna, that is, native species that are unique, not found in any other part of the world, and which are already threatened by deforestation and urbanization.
The Dominican Republic has recorded the presence of 186 invasive species, the largest number in the region, followed by Puerto Rico, with 182, and the Bahamas, with 159.
Passenger cruise ships also dump as much as 70 litres of dangerous waste a day into the sea. Toxins include photo processing chemicals, paints, solvents and batteries, which threaten animal and human life alike, as 70 percent of the Caribbean population lives in coastal areas.
The region is also affected by heavy oil tanker traffic. Several of the world’s leading crude oil producers are in the Greater Caribbean area, including Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago.
Petroleum often ends up dumped in the Caribbean waters, due to erratic waste management or to accidental spills.
Cuba’s Havana Bay is the most polluted, with 1,200 milligrams of hydrocarbons per kilogram of dry sediment, while Jamaica’s Kingston Harbour has 578 milligrams per kilo of dry sediment, according to UNEP.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78 — developed in 1973 and amended in 1978) regulates the disposal of oil, toxic substances, and garbage from ships.
Annex Five, which entered into force on December 31, 1988, governs the disposal of garbage and imposes a complete ban on the dumping into the sea of all forms of plastic.
A 1993 amendment designated the ‘Wider Caribbean’ as a vulnerable ‘special area’ with restrictions on how ships can deal with garbage disposal.
This designation has not yet come into force, however, because states have not advized the oversight body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as to whether adequate facilities exist to deal with ship generated waste.
‘It may be that the systems are there but they have not been reported,” IMO regional adviser Curtis Roach told Tierramerica.
IMO Secretary General Efthimios Mitropoulos urged Caribbean countries ‘to redouble their efforts to ensure that the provisions of the Special Area status take effect without further delay,’ during a regional seminar in Barbados last July,
The Wider Caribbean encompasses the region’s islands and the coastal areas of the mainland Latin American countries, from Mexico to French Guyana, as well as El Salvador, even thought its shoreline is on the Pacific Ocean.
Its institutional manifestation is the Association of Caribbean States, created in 1994, with 25 independent states as full members, plus Aruba, Dutch Antilles and France (on behalf of Guadeloupe, French Guyana and Martinique).
According to Caribbean Environment Outlook, a publication prepared by the United Nations Development Program for the Jan. 10-14 Mauritius meeting of small island states, the nine-member Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) is reporting “harmonized policies and legislation for both shore and ship generated waste.”
St. Lucia cites improved ship waste reception at major ports and marinas. And in Jamaica, extensive groundwork is now being done to establish a facility to dispose of ship generated garbage.
Originally published Jan. 15 by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramerica network. Tierramerica is a specialized news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Program and the United Nations Environment Program