Report: EU Should Encourage South Asian Shipbreaking Yards to Get on EU SRR List

first_imgThe European Union needs to give the audited South Asian ship recycling facilities “a fair chance” to get on the EU list, a recent report issued by the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA) says.The report is based on ECSA’s fact-finding mission to India’s shipbreaking facilities in Alang, in the State of Gujarat, that took place on February 25-27.The association said that the aim of the mission was to gain a better understanding of the possible threats to and opportunities for the Indian ship recycling and European shipping industries.As informed, the facilities ECSA visited exhibit huge strides made over the past three years to raise standards, guided by the Hong Kong Convention (HKC) and the prospect to be included in the EU list.The mission was marked by the willingness of the side of the ship recycling facilities, the Ship Recycling Industries Association (India) SRIA and the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB), to transparently demonstrate and critically discuss the actual state of play towards healthy, safe and environmentally-sound recycling operations in Alang. The EU should apply its own principles of sustainable development also in their relations with third countries, ECSA said.According to ECSA, the EU Ship Recycling Regulation (EU SRR) can only fully meet its aim to facilitate the HKC within the EU and in third countries provided it is inclusive. If facilities in third countries comply to the legal requirements of the EU SRR, their inclusion will facilitate the third country government to ban substandard demolition practices and ratify the HKC, providing a global solution and level playing field to an industry operating internationally.“Only by encouraging and rewarding South Asian facilities that comply with the legal requirements of the EU SRR, the EU can succeed in facilitating worldwide ratifications of the HKC and as such the development of sustainable ship recycling practices all over the globe,” the report says.The HKC is the only applicable international instrument that can provide a meaningful regulation for the development of sustainable global recycling facilities. As a matter of priority, EU Member States must now ratify the HKC and, in conjunction with the EU Commission, strive to ensure key recycling states and flag states follow suit, ECSA noted.In order to help facilitate the global ratification of the IMO’s 2009 Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, the EU adopted the EU SRR in 2013 which includes a list of approved ship recycling facilities for ships flying the flags of Member States.As a result, since 2016, non-EU facilities including those in India have received statements of compliance with HKC and have applied to be on the EU list.Read more:BIMCO: EU Ship Recycling Rules Disadvantage European OwnersShipping Industry Wants Beaching Yards on EU ListMSI: EU Needs to Speed Up Approvals of Asian Shipbreaking YardsEuropean Shipowners Call for More Compliant Ship Recycling Facilitieslast_img read more

A word from USG

first_imgThe main role of the Undergraduate Student Government is to serve as the representative body for the undergraduate student population here at USC. The Undergraduate Student Government, also known as USG, is able to do this through the programming of events, advocating for desired changes, funding student organizations and events and writing new legislation for change. To execute and promote these ideals, it requires the work of dedicated students who want to be part of this movement of change. Students are given the opportunity at the beginning of each semester to apply to be part of the USG team by joining advocacy committees such as University Affairs and Diversity Affairs, or funding boards such as the Philanthropy Funding Board or the Discretionary Funding Board. In addition, USG is comprised of elected officials who were chosen in the previous year’s election to represent their various constituency groups such as the Residential, Commuter and Greek Senator positions, and the President and Vice President positions.This year, to ensure the best possible results for both candidate’s participation and student voter turnout, numerous changes have been made to the Elections Code.The Elections and Recruitment team took the advice and experience of past candidates and past Elections and Recruitment teams to make changes to the USG Elections Code. The focus of this year’s changes was to increase student participation in the elections both as candidates and as voters as well as improve the elections procedure for candidates, and eliminate gray areas that might cause confusion. One of the major changes made to the elections procedure was the elimination of the “research period.” During this period, candidates were allowed to conduct research by visiting student organizations and other groups on campus in an effort to promote themselves as well as see what platform points to build. During this period, however, candidates were not allowed to disclose their intent to run for any position and also had to include various disclaimers to avoid committing violations. To avoid the confusion that surrounded this period, we removed this period and replaced it with the Campaign Period Part I, which allows candidates to conduct in-person research with student organizations and other groups on campus, but also allowed candidates to disclose themselves as candidates for a certain position.In addition, this new Campaign Period Part I allowed for candidates to utilize social media and digital forms of campaigning a week and half earlier than previous year’s campaigning periods. This change allows for candidates to advertise their campaign for a longer period of time, garnering more exposure and in turn allowing student voters the opportunity to learn more about the candidates. This change was one of many made to the new Elections Code to make the elections process easier for both the candidates and those in charge of making sure elections is conducted smoothly.The Undergraduate Student Government holds an influential position on campus and is a tremendous tool for students to utilize for change and advocacy on campus. Given our position as the voice and representation of the undergraduate population, it is important that people take the time to learn about the candidates in this year’s upcoming elections as they might have a direct impact in their undergraduate experience with projected plans. In addition to voting and being aware of the elections, students should explore the opportunity to be part of the Undergraduate Student Government. By being part of this organization, students will have the direct power to invoke changes in the areas they want to see changed. Consider being part of the change by voting in this year’s upcoming elections and also being part of the Undergraduate Student Government as a member.Fight on!Olivia Diamond is the Senior Director of Communications for the Undergraduate Student Government. Andrew Cho is the Co-Director of Elections and Recruitment for the Undergraduate Student Government.last_img read more

Tuesday’s semi truck rollover on KTA Exit Ramp resulted in no damage

first_img Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (2) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. 0 Vote up Vote down Billy · 382 weeks ago Sooooo…..there was a minor accident with no damage and no injuries? Report Reply 0 replies · active 382 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down WHSFAN · 382 weeks ago Billy…whats wrong you can’t read….driver got out on his own, and semi was managed in a way to make sure a accident didnt turn into a major issue if it was carrying any flammable materials. S/O to the first responders that place their lifes in harms way everyday. Report Reply 0 replies · active 382 weeks ago Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow — A semi truck rollover at the Wellington exit of the Kansas Turnpike at 4:58 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16 resulted in at least two hours of work for rescue workers.The Wellington Fire and EMS Service responded to a tanker roller where a semi truck hauling butane had rolled over while exiting. The driver had already exited the vehicle and was on the scene with the highway patrol officer. Firefighters used a gas monitor to determine if there were any leaks with the tank and did an assessment of driver for injuries. The driver, not named in the Wellington Fire and EMS press release, refused treatment and no leaks were detected.Firefighters returned at 7 p.m. to assist tow service while gaining access to batteries with extrication tools and standby while tanker was uprighted.last_img read more

Weah Urged to Prosecute Liberian War Criminals

first_img– Advertisement – About 20 human rights groups have written President George M. Weah requesting him to investigate and prosecute those connected to the commission of atrocities during the 14-year civil war.The rights groups put their request forward on January 21, 2018, a day to Weah’s inauguration, in an open letter to the President.The groups called upon President Weah “to fulfill Liberia’s obligations to investigate and prosecute wartime atrocities” and urged him to “make accountability a priority for your administration and ensure the protection of Liberian human rights defenders, particularly those working on accountability initiatives.”Liberia endured two back to back civil wars from 1989 to 1997 and 1999 to 2003, during which some diplomatic sources estimate up to 250,000 were killed, with more than half the country forcibly displaced.A report by Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released in June 2009 found all sides responsible for serious violations of domestic and international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, widespread and systematic rape and sexual slavery, torture, use and recruitment of child soldiers, and mass executions of civilians.Although the TRC recommended the establishment of an Extraordinary Criminal Tribunal in Liberia to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of serious violations of international criminal and humanitarian laws, the only prosecutions to date have been outside of Liberia.Hassan Bility, executive director of the Monrovia-based Global Justice and Research Project and one of the authors of the open letter, said: “Justice must be one of the cardinal points of the President’s new agenda. There must be justice for war crimes; otherwise there will be no lasting peace in Liberia.”Bility, a former journalist and torture survivor of the civil war, helped initiate the arrests of several Liberian perpetrators in Europe and the U.S. in partnership with the Swiss based NGO, Civitas Maxima.“Recent cases such as the conviction of Jungle Jabbah in Philadelphia and the indictments of other alleged war criminals in Europe and the U.S. have shown that prosecuting war criminals will not reignite the civil war in Liberia, as has often been feared,” said Nushin Sarkarati, senior staff attorney at the Center for Justice and Accountability. “It is time to bring these examples of justice home, and make ending impunity in Liberia a priority.”Advocacy for prosecution of war criminals after the Liberian civil war began when former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, one of the key players, took over the war ravished country as President.Former President Sirleaf in her confession during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hearing said she provided US$10,000 to convicted former Liberian President Charles Taylor for humanitarian purpose, but her account was challenged by former wartime colleague Thomas Jucontee Woewiyu, who said her financial contribution far exceeded what she admitted to.Charles Taylor headed the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) at the time the former President made the donation; something that is a contradiction of the meaning of her donation as claimed.The quest for establishment of a war crimes court in Liberia began with Mulbah Morlu, a strong stalwart of the Coalition for Democratic Change (CDC) of George Weah. Morlu has since abandoned that quest. However, the San Francisco based Center for Justice and Accountability continues to lead the drive to bring Liberian war criminals to justice.The Center for Justice and Accountability is an international human rights organization dedicated to deterring torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other severe human rights abuses around the world through litigation, policy advocacy and outreach in pursuit of truth, justice and redress for victims and survivors.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Human rights advocate and former journalist, Hassan Bilitylast_img read more

Journals to solve John Smith common name problem by requiring author IDs

first_imgIt has been slow to catch fire because researchers, most of whom do not have a name ambiguity problem, had little incentive to sign up. But adoption has climbed steadily, with the total number of ORCID users now standing just shy of 2 million. The spread of locations from which they log in matches the increasingly global spread of scientific output. “China is our No. 2 country,” Haak says.That’s no surprise to Weizhe Hong, a neuroscience postdoc at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. “I signed up years ago when I was a Ph.D. student.” He was highly motivated. “If people search for my papers using just my initial and last name, they get more than 10,000 hits. It’s a disaster.”Hong points out that Asian names often have both sides of the ambiguity problem. Not only do many share the same surname—tens of millions of people are named Nguyen, more than 100 million named Wang—but transliteration to the Roman alphabet often results in multiple spellings of a single person’s name. “And of course, if you get married and change your name,” Hong says, “then you’ve got another problem.”ORCID relieves these “pain points” for scientists, Haak says, but she points out that ORCID doesn’t do all the work for them. First, although scientists’ ID codes will tag all of their papers going forward, it is up to them to curate the work they’ve already published. She says that universities are helping their researchers with this tagging process.Also dodged is the dead scientist problem. Though it is free to do so, “ORCID requires a living scientist to sign up for the system,” Haak says. So the bulk of scientific authorship may just linger as a kind of bibliometric dark matter—unstructured data in an increasingly structured world of scientific publication. “There was hope back around 2008 that we could use computers to solve this problem,” Haak says, by automatically identifying the people behind the author names in published papers. “But it turns out they’re not good enough.” Perhaps a grassroots system like Wikipedia will emerge to barcode all the dead authors, though Haak is skeptical the problem will ever be solved.The letter published today is signed by the American Geophysical Union, eLife, EMBO, Hindawi, the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, the Public Library of Science, and the Royal Society—the latter began mandating used of ORCID IDs as of 1 January but the rest have just pledged to reach that stage by year’s end. AAAS—(publisher of Science) is also joining. “At Science we support the use of ORCID IDs to verify author and reviewer identity,” says Science Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt, who confirmed that the four AAAS journals will start requiring authors to provide ORCID IDs this year. And the recently formed Springer Nature publishing company confirmed, in an email to ScienceInsider, that they will encourage—but not require—ORCID IDs from authors of papers published in their 3000 journals.Researchers contacted by ScienceInsider who hadn’t heard of ORCID had mild enthusiasm for the idea of an identification code. “Yeah I would probably sign up,” says Alexander Smith, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). “I know what I’ve published and I keep a list of my papers on my website, so that’s how people tend to find the work I’ve done.” But the commonness of his name is sometimes a nuisance for people trying to find him—or people with the same name. There is even another professor of medicine at his own university named Alexander Smith, not to mention a famous football quarterback who dominates Google searches for their shared name. “But the real problem is clinical,” the UCSF researchers says. “There are other people named A. Smith in the hospital system and I get their patient notes and orders.” ORCID won’t solve that problem, but for publishers at least, it may be the start of a solution to name ambiguity. It was far from clear that ORCID would win this race. By 2009, when it was launched, there were already several competing ID systems. Industry giants such as Thomson Reuters offered a system called ResearcherID while Elsevier offered the Scopus author identifier. Although those researcher tagging systems were well-tailored to each company’s services and databases, “they’re proprietary,” says Laurel Haak, executive director of ORCID which is registered in Delaware but has no physical headquarters. After consultation with the scientific community, a group of scientific organizations—Crossref, which provides the digital object identifier system for papers, and the Welcome Trust research charity were big players, Haak says—decided to create their own system. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Name ambiguity. It’s one of those problems that you’re born with. If you’re a Williams, Johnson, or Smith—the most common surnames in the United States—it can be tricky for people to find you on the Internet, especially if you also have a common first name, such as Michael, Mary, James, or Jennifer. For academic researchers, whose careers are measured largely by authorship on papers, name ambiguity is a killer. Wouldn’t it be great if all scientists had a unique identifier that mapped to all of their papers, projects, and grants?Wait no longer. The scientific community seems to be coalescing at last around a single researcher identification standard. In an open letter released online today, some of the largest academic publishers and scientific societies are announcing that they will not just encourage, but ultimately require, researchers to sign up with ORCID, a nonprofit organization that uniquely identifies people with a 16-digit number. Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrylast_img read more