I feel this is not getting the deserved attention and I will rectify the situation. Because, traditionally, drills precede a false flag, which is organized by the same people who did the drill.
The official press release of the event, basically, published yesterday by Reuters and sent out to every mainstream news outlet out there:
EXCLUSIVE IMF, 10 countries simulate cyberattack on global financial system
<<Israel financial-cyber officials take part in a simulation of a major cyber attack on the global financial system with 9 other countries, the World Bank and IMF at the Finance Ministry in Jerusalem.
JERUSALEM, Dec 9 (Reuters) – Israel on Thursday led a 10-country simulation of a major cyberattack on the global financial system in an attempt to increase cooperation that could help to minimise any potential damage to financial markets and banks.
The simulated “war game”, as Israel’s Finance Ministry called it and planned over the past year, evolved over 10 days, with sensitive data emerging on the Dark Web. The simulation also used fake news reports that in the scenario caused chaos in global markets and a run on banks.
The simulation — likely caused by what officials called “sophisticated” players — featured several types of attacks that impacted global foreign exchange and bond markets, liquidity, integrity of data and transactions between importers and exporters.
“These events are creating havoc in the financial markets,” said a narrator of a film shown to the participants as part of the simulation and seen by Reuters.
Israeli government officials said that such threats are possible in the wake of the many high-profile cyberattacks on large companies, and that the only way to contain any damage is through global cooperation since current cyber security is not always strong enough.
“Attackers are 10 steps ahead of the defender,” Micha Weis, financial cyber manager at Israel’s Finance Ministry, told Reuters.
Participants in the initiative, called “Collective Strength”, included treasury officials from Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Thailand, as well as representatives from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Bank of International Settlements.
The narrator of the film in the simulation said governments were under pressure to clarify the impact of the attack, which was paralysing the global financial system.
“The banks are appealing for emergency liquidity assistance in a multitude of currencies to put a halt to the chaos as counterparties withdraw their funds and limit access to liquidity, leaving the banks in disarray and ruin,” the narrator said.
The participants discussed multilateral policies to respond to the crisis, including a coordinated bank holiday, debt repayment grace periods, SWAP/REPO agreements and coordinated delinking from major currencies.
Rahav Shalom-Revivo, head of Israel’s financial cyber engagements, said international collaboration between finance ministries and international organizations “is key for the resilience of the financial eco-system.”
The simulation was originally scheduled to take place at the Dubai World Expo but it was moved to Jerusalem due to the Omicron variant of COVID-19, with officials participating over video conference.>>
Now please tell me which countries spearheaded restrictions and the Great Reset the most. Australia and Canada belong to the British Crown and need to be assimilated with UK.
And this is the view from Israel, as per Times of Israel:
Israel leads 10-country simulation of major cyberattack on world markets
10-day drill led by Finance Ministry aims to boost international cooperation against hacker threat to global financial systems
An illustrative image of computer popup box screen warning of a system being hacked; hackers, cybersecurity attack. (solarseven; iStock by Getty Images)
Israel led a 10-country, 10-day-long simulation of a major cyberattack on the world’s financial system by “sophisticated” players, with the goal of minimizing the damage to banks and financial markets, the Finance Ministry said on Thursday.
The Finance Ministry led the scenario with help from the Foreign Ministry, and said the “war game” was the first of its kind.
The exercise simulated several scenarios, including sensitive data surfacing on the dark web alongside fake news, leading to global financial chaos.
Participants included representatives from the US, UK, United Arab Emirates, Germany, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Thailand, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
The Finance Ministry’s chief economist, Shira Greenberg, headed the Israeli team. The exercise was “further evidence of Israel’s global leadership” in the field of financial cyber defense, she said.Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Editionby email and never miss our top storiesNewsletter email addressGET ITBy signing up, you agree to the terms
“The unique and groundbreaking exercise held today showed the importance of coordinated global action by governments together with central banks in the face of financial cyber threats,” Greenberg said.
The simulation “featured several types of attacks that impacted global foreign exchange and bond markets, liquidity, integrity of data and transactions between importers and exporters,” Reuters reported.
Israeli officials said international cooperation was the only way to counter the threat of major cyberattacks.
“Attackers are 10 steps ahead of the defender,” said Micha Weis, financial cyber manager at the Finance Ministry.
In October, the National Cyber Directorate issued a general warning to Israeli businesses to be aware of potential cyberattacks, as the country faced an uptick in hacking attempts.Prime Minister Naftali Bennett speaks at the annual Cyber Week, at Tel Aviv University, on July 21, 2021. (Miriam Alster/FLASH90)
The warning came after an Israeli hospital faced a major ransomware cyberattack that crippled systems, and from which it could take several months to recover.
On Wednesday, Israel’s National Insurance Institute said that its website had been hacked, causing it to go offline for several hours.
In July, cybersecurity firm Check Point reported that Israeli institutions are targeted by about twice as many cyberattacks as is average in other countries around the world, particularly the country’s health sector, which experiences an average of 1,443 attacks a week.
The most targeted sectors around the world, including in Israel, are education and research, followed by government and security organizations, and then health institutions, Check Point said.
The report found that, on average, one in every 60 Israeli organizations or firms is targeted every week with ransomware attacks, an increase of 30 percent over the rate in 2020.Hospital staff at Hillel Yaffe Medical Center log patient details with pen and paper, following a ransomware cyberattack, October 13, 2021. (Hillel Yaffe Medical Center)
Last month, the Black Shadow hacking group released what it said was the full database of personal user information from the Atraf website, an Israeli LGBTQ dating service and nightlife index.
The group also uploaded personal medical information for patients of Israel’s Machon Mor medical institute, including medical records of some 290,000 patients.
The two attacks amounted to one of Israel’s largest-ever privacy breaches.
Black Shadow is a group of Iran-linked hackers who use cyberattacks for criminal ends, according to Hebrew media reports.
Very interesting report from ToI, as opposed to Reuters, isn’t it? Now let’s zoom out a little, for more context
The Centre for Cybersecurity is leading the global response to address systemic cybersecurity challenges and improve digital trust.
As technological advances and global interconnectivity accelerate exponentially in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, unprecedented systemic security risks and threats are undermining trust and growth.
The World Economic Forum’s Centre for Cybersecurity is an independent and impartial global platform committed to fostering international dialogues and collaboration between the global cybersecurity community both in the public and private sectors. We bridge the gap between cybersecurity experts and decision makers at the highest levels to reinforce the importance of cybersecurity as a key strategic priority.
Our Community has identified the following three key priorities:
Building Cyber Resilience – enhance cyber resilience by developing and scaling forward-looking solutions and promoting effective practices across digital ecosystems.
Strengthening Global Cooperation – increase global cooperation between public and private stakeholders by fostering a collective response to cybercrime, and jointly addressing key security challenges.
Understanding Future Networks and Technology – identify future cybersecurity challenges and opportunities related to Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies and envision solutions which help build trust.
Among the speakers we also find the CyberPeace Institute, a Geneva-based company that describes itself as “citizens who seek peace and justice in cyberspace,” funded by Microsoft, Facebook, Mastercard, and the Hewlett Foundation.
I’m still feeling I’m looking at pictures from the same wedding party. Can we find more? Aplenty, but let’s zoom out even more:
Remember IMF / Worls Bank are official partners of the World Economic Forum. I didn’t mention them in the headline below, but they are a key factor there too:
On June 28, 2017, The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.
“This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.”
FOR MY FINAL BULLETPOINT: WHICH COUNTRY DO YOU THINK IT HAS BEST CYBERATTACK CAPABILITIES, IN TERMS OF KNOW-HOW AND TECHNOLOGY?
Israeli Military trains and ‘privatizes’ some of the world’s best hackers
Where I’m getting at:
We’ve isolated the virus here, in its many variants.
It’s the same small core of culprits running both the defense and the attack, with the same old tactics. They’ve already coopted or allied everyone that could pose a threat, except Iran. Similarly to how Epstein’s customers sit on both benches in Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial.
I mean, who attacks “the global financial system”, aliens? I know some people who have been attacking it for centuries now. They’re largely the same ones doing this ‘defense’ exercise. Noticed all militaries are ran by “defense” ministries? There’s no Land and Resources Grabbing Ministry or industry.
If you prefer sports analogies better, think all the teams involved in this pandemic / Great Reset were football teams, and this reveals once again the board of the International Football Association that organizes the World Cup. They don’t care that much who wins as long as the show meets the profitability targets and doesn’t threaten their control positions.
They make money off the ‘rivalry’ and the show, not teams.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button! We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness. Get it here!
Remember Silverstein, the dude who cashed some billions insurance for the WTC towers that fell on 9/11? I’ve often likened that event and the Plandemic and guess what: the Plandemic has its own Silversteins. Possibly same ones at the top of the tops.
May 2016 – The World Bank announces the creation of the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF)
The event took place at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Governors meeting in Sendai, Japan. The PEF is a scheme to channel funding to countries facing a major disease outbreak with pandemic potential.
2017 – The creation of theGlobal Preparedness Monitoring Board
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) is an independent monitoring and accountability body co-convened by the World Bank and World Health Organization, created in response to recommendations by the UN Secretary General’s Global Health Crises Task Force in 2017.
Despite progress made since the West Africa Ebola crisis in 2014/15, GPMB’s 2019 report, A World At Risk noted an increasingly dire risk of widespread epidemics, and found that the world remained unprepared. GPMB warned that epidemic-prone diseases like Ebola, influenza and SARS were increasingly difficult to manage in the face of prolonged conflict, fragile states, and forced migration.
June 2017 – World Bank Launches First-Ever Pandemic Bonds to Support $500 Million Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility
Washington, DC, June 28, 2017 – The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) today launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.
This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.
The PEF will provide more than $500 million to cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years, through a combination of bonds and derivatives priced today, a cash window, and future commitments from donor countries for additional coverage.
The transaction, that enables PEF to potentially save millions of lives, was oversubscribed by 200% reflecting an overwhelmingly positive reception from investors and a high level of confidence in the new World Bank sponsored instrument. With such strong demand, the World Bank was able to price the transaction well below the original guidance from the market. The total amount of risk transferred to the market through the bonds and derivatives is $425 million.
“With this new facility, we have taken a momentous step that has the potential to save millions of lives and entire economies from one of the greatest systemic threats we face,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said. “We are moving away from the cycle of panic and neglect that has characterized so much of our approach to pandemics. We are leveraging our capital market expertise, our deep understanding of the health sector, our experience overcoming development challenges, and our strong relationships with donors and the insurance industry to serve the world’s poorest people. This creates an entirely new market for pandemic risk insurance. Drawing on lessons from the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa, the Facility will help improve health security for everyone. I especially want to thank the World Health Organization and the governments of Japan and Germany for their support in launching this new mechanism.”
The World Bank announced the creation of the PEF in May 2016 at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Governors meeting in Sendai, Japan. The PEF will quickly channel funding to countries facing a major disease outbreak with pandemic potential. Its unique financing structure combines funding from the bonds issued today with over-the-counter derivatives that transfer pandemic outbreak risk to derivative counterparties. The structure was designed to attract a wider, more diverse set of investors.
The PEF has two windows. The first is an ‘insurance’ window with premiums funded by Japan and Germany, consisting of bonds and swaps including those executed today. The second is a ‘cash’ window, for which Germany provided initial funding of Euro 50 million. The cash window will be available from 2018 for the containment of diseases that may not be eligible for funding under the insurance window.
The bonds and derivatives for the PEF’s ‘insurance’ window were developed by the World Bank Treasury in cooperation with leading reinsurance companies Swiss Re and Munich Re. AIR Worldwide was the sole modeler, using the AIR Pandemic Model to provide expert risk analysis. Swiss Re Capital Markets is the sole book runner for the transaction. Swiss Re Capital Markets and Munich Re are the joint structuring agents. Munich Re and GC Securities, a division of MMC Securities LLC are co-managers.
Swiss Re Capital Markets Limited, Munich Re and GC Securities were also joint arrangers on the derivatives transactions.
The bonds will be issued under IBRD’s “capital at risk” program because investors bear the risk of losing part or all of their investment in the bond if an epidemic event triggers pay-outs to eligible countries covered under the PEF.
The PEF covers six viruses that are most likely to cause a pandemic. These include new Orthomyxoviruses (new influenza pandemic virus A), Coronaviridae (SARS, MERS), Filoviridae (Ebola, Marburg) and other zoonotic diseases (Crimean Congo, Rift Valley, Lassa fever).
PEF financing to eligible countries will be triggered when an outbreak reaches predetermined levels of contagion, including number of deaths; the speed of the spread of the disease; and whether the disease crosses international borders.
The determinations for the trigger are made based on publicly available data as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Countries eligible for financing under the PEF’s insurance window are members of the International Development Association (IDA), the institution of the World Bank Group that provides concessional finance for the world’s poorest countries. The PEF will be governed by a Steering Body, whose voting members include Japan and Germany. WHO and the World Bank serve as non-voting members.
The World Bank has developed some of the most innovative catastrophe risk insurance instruments in the market to help developing countries manage risk. In the past ten years the institution has executed approximately $1.6 billion in catastrophe risk transactions.
IBRD Pandemic Bonds Distribution by Investor Type and Location
Distribution by Investor Type
Class A
Class B
Dedicated Catastrophe Bond Investor
61.7%
35.3%
Endowment
3.3%
6.3%
Asset Manager
20.6%
16.3%
Pension Fund
14.4%
42.1%
Distribution by Investor Location
Class A
Class B
US
27.9%
15.0%
Europe
71.8%
82.9%
Bermuda
0.1%
2.1%
Japan
0.2%
0.0%
IBRD Pandemic Bonds Summary Terms and Conditions*
Type of Note
Class A
Class B
Issuer:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Trade Date:
June 28, 2017
June 28, 2017
Final Size (Bond only)**
USD 225 million
USD 95 million
Settlement Date:
July 7, 2017
July 7, 2017
Scheduled Maturity Date:
July 15, 2020 extendable monthly in whole or in part, up to a maximum of 12 months following the Scheduled Maturity Date
July 15, 2020 extendable monthly in whole or in part, up to a maximum of 12 months following the Scheduled Maturity Date
Issue Price:
100%
100%
Bond Coupon:
6m USD LIBOR +6.50%
6m USD LIBOR +11.10%
Covered Perils:
Flu, Coronavirus
Filovirus, Coronavirus, Lassa Fever, Rift Valley Fever and Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever
Redemption Amount:
The Notes will not be fully repaid if an event occurs
The Notes will not be fully repaid if an event occurs
(*) Please see the Supplemental Prospectus for a detailed description of the Terms and Conditions of the bonds, the related risks with regard to an investment in the bonds and the relevant offering restrictions. Any offer of the bonds will solely take place on the basis of the Supplemental Prospectus prepared by the World Bank or on behalf of the World Bank. (**) There was an additional $105 million size done in the derivatives market.
Our take out from this? Remember the strange numbers reported during the first “casedemic of 2020”? They determined how much money WB pays and to whom. But WB and the funky bunch are also behind WHO, so it’s safe to say controlled the situation at all times and could arbitrarily decide whatever.
2018 – World Bank Group’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) Welcomes Australia as New Donor
WASHINGTON, JUNE 21, 2018 — The World Bank Group’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) welcomes Australia as a donor to the PEF, joining Japan and Germany. Australia is contributing US$7.2 million to the PEF’s Cash Window, which was set up through an initial contribution from Germany. Australia will also now be a voting member of the PEF Steering Body.
“With this contribution to the PEF, Australia is supporting the scaling up of national and international responses to infectious disease outbreaks,”said the Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Australia. “We are committed to working with international partners to reduce the risk of global pandemics and improve health security for all.”
“The PEF ensures that we break the cycle of panic and neglect which has so far characterized the global approach to pandemics,” said Annette Dixon, Vice President, Human Development at the World Bank Group. “It is a key example of the World Bank Group’s commitment to creating innovative financing mechanisms to tackle complex global challenges, working with country governments, donors, international partners and the private sector.”
“The robust and swift contribution of the PEF just in the past week has underlined its role as a new model for financing pandemic response with speed and flexibility,” said Mukesh Chawla, Coordinator of the PEF and Advisor, World Bank Group. “It ensures that money is never the reason holding back effective response.”
The PEF, set up by the World Bank Group in partnership with Japan, Germany, the World Health Organization (WHO), and private sector partners, has been operational since July 2017 and consists of both a cash and an insurance component. The PEF’s $425 million Insurance Window with premiums funded by Japan and Germany, consists of bonds placed on the capital markets. This would be triggered if a much larger, multi-country response is needed. All activation criteria are based upon publicly available data provided by the WHO. The PEF covers 78 of the world’s poorest countries against pandemic threats and is the first mechanism to be expressly designed for this purpose.
The Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) – a financing mechanism housed at the World Bank – is designed to provide an additional source of financing to help the world’s poorest countries respond to cross-border, large-scale outbreaks. The PEF complements the much larger role that IDA, the World Bank’s fund for the poorest countries, and other international organizations and donors play in financing outbreak response. The PEF’s design is unique in that payments can go directly to governments and pre-approved frontline responder organizations (such as WHO & UNICEF) and it can do so through either its cash window — or once triggered through its insurance window.
February 2020 – Is the whole thing is designed to fail?
The Street does a really good job at explaining the scheme: “In June 2017, the World Bank — the international financial institution that provides loans to poorer countries — sold around $425 million (€391 million) worth of bonds and derivatives aimed at providing financial support to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.
The less risky tranche of the bonds will not be paid back to investors if there are more than 2,500 deaths in developing countries as a result of a pandemic. Although China has recorded more than this number of deaths, the World Bank does not designate it a developing country.
By far the riskier of the two bonds is “Class B,” which sold $95 million in bonds (compared to $225 million for the less risky “Class A,” explained above). For Class B, if the disease crosses an international border and if there are at least 20 deaths in that second country, the investors’ money will be paid to developing countries dealing with the outbreak.
I do not come up with $425 million total. $225 million plus $95 million does not total $425 million.
Only those class B bonds are going to trigger.
An international crisis is brewing. There are 19 deaths in Iran, 12 in Italy, and 12 in South Korea.
One more death in Iran is all it takes unless there are other restrictions.
Designed to Fail
Bodo Ellmers, the director of the Global Policy Forum’s sustainable development finance program told the Financial Times the instrument was “useless.”
“You obviously want to prevent a pandemic but it only pays out when it becomes a pandemic,” he said.
Olga Jones, who worked as an economist at the World Bank for three decades, said it was absurd that discussions for a second round of bonds for what is known officially as the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) had begun, as they were effectively “designed to fail.”
Many critics have also pointed to the fact that the severe attack of Ebola that hit the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2018 did not meet the conditions to trigger payment of the pandemic bonds despite the fact that almost 500 people died and that it was one of the largest outbreaks ever recorded.
Payout and Maturity
The Class A bonds feature an interest rate of 7% while the Class B bonds’ rate is 11%.
According to the PEF, around $75.5 million had been paid to bondholders in the form of premiums as of August 2019. The full amount paid in interest and coupons has not been disclosed. The bonds are set to mature in July 2020.
“The idea behind pandemic bonds, issued by the World Bank in 2017, is simple: They pay investors a solid return, but if a pandemic breaks out, the principal is redirected to help low-income countries pay for their emergency response.
An investor who doesn’t do the legwork is liable to get burned when the bonds don’t behave as expected. At 386 pages, the prospectus for the World Bank’s class-B securities isn’t a light read.
The second and larger problem with pandemic bonds is one they don’t share with other catastrophe-related securities. During extreme events, they don’t offer a source of returns uncorrelated with major capital markets—one of the things buyers like most about the asset class.
Pandemic bonds are most likely to be triggered just as equities tumble and concerns about companies’ ability to finance themselves come to the fore, as now. In short, the asset class is uncorrelated with wider markets—except at the exact moment when that matters most. Then it is suddenly very correlated.”
Questions Abound
These bonds pay interest. How does the Wold Bank pay that interest?
Generally, companies issue bonds for expansion and expect to pay the debt back from future profits or current income.
What is the World Bank invested in or doing with the money to pay way above market rates?
Only the $95 million in class B bonds will trigger. But at 11% interest with a maturity date coming up, most of that money has been paid out.
Even if some developing nations do end up receiving pandemic bond money, it will be a trivial sum when compared with the economic damage from a sustained coronavirus pandemic.
Meanwhile the class A bond buyers have been collecting 7% with virtually no chance of losing their money by July of 2020 because China is not a developing nation.
The whole setup makes no sense unless failure was the intent all along.” – The Street
Or, unless it’s designed to not trigger more than conveniently, like electronic poker. – Silview
Intent is the hardest thing to demonstrate in the justice system. Except in this case. WB put years of effort in elaborating a “maze of confusion” when it comes to the bonds’ triggers, to avoid payment, as a former WB expert testifies in the Bloomberg video below. All that effort weighs now as evidence of premeditation. There’s literally a few kilos of evidence available, if printed.
World Bank’s $500m pandemic scheme accused of ‘waiting for people to die’
Bonds designed to provide fast funding for poor countries branded ‘obscene’ because of complex payout criteria
A flagship $500m World Bank scheme to help the poorest countries deal with a health emergency is “too little too late” for the coronavirus outbreak, say health experts.
The first pandemic emergency financing (PEF) bonds were launched in 2017 by Jim Yong Kim, the bank’s president at the time, after the Ebola outbreak in west Africa. Designed to potentially “save millions of lives and entire economies” by speedily funnelling money to nations facing pandemics.
But critics say the “insanely complicated” terms of the high-interest bonds are heavily skewed towards investors, while for the victims any payouts may come too late, if at all.
One economist described the bonds, payouts from which depend on how deadly the outbreak is, as “obscene”.
Olga Jonas, a senior fellow at Harvard Global Health Institute who was an economist at the World Bank for three decades, said: “The whole mechanism is highly unfortunate. The objectives were to help the poorest countries respond quickly to outbreaks. Infectious disease spreads exponentially and the coronavirus has a very rapid growth rate. But the bonds only get triggered when the disease has spread for a long time.”
Jonas, who has analysed the bonds’ terms, said they were “so convoluted, it is not at all clear whether they will pay out at all. It is too little, too late – and in this case, maybe never.
“What’s obscene is that the World Bank set it up this way. It waits for people to die.”
Funds can only be released after a certain amount of time and in accordance with complex criteria including outbreak size, growth rate, deadlines and death tolls. In the case of coronavirus, the bonds would not pay out until 12 weeks after the World Health Organization (WHO) publishes its first “situation report”, which would not be until 23 March. Another criterion is that the outbreak is still growing.
The bonds, funded by donor nations Japan and Germany, deliver interest payments to investors until the conditions for an infectious disease outbreak are triggered.
The value of the bonds has halved as the coronavirus outbreak has spread, raising fears investors could face losses.
Meanwhile, the WHO has appealed for £520m for “frontline efforts” to contain coronavirus. The disease has infected more than 82,000 people and killed over 2,800 people in 51 countries to date, but has not yet been declared a pandemic by the WHO.
Clare Wenham, assistant professor in global health policy at the London School of Economics, said: “If you really wanted to ensure global health security you would link the payout of the bonds to a decision around declaring a public health emergency of international concern or a national emergency.”
Wenham co-authored a paper criticising pandemic bonds in which it was found that more money was paid out to investors than to countries facing disease outbreaks. Payments would have only been triggered in two out of more than 60 disease outbreaks analysed – Ebola in west Africa and rift valley fever in 2006, the paper found.
Wenham said: “If the aim of it is to prevent pandemics, why would you wait for arbitrary numbers? Global health security is predicated on prevention rather than response, so waiting for it to get to a certain number of deaths in a certain number of countries before they pay out, is counterintuitive. It is not fit for purpose.
“No one has thought about it holistically. If public health officials have made a declaration of a global health emergency of international concern, there should be some mechanism for financing so that the WHO doesn’t have to go around the houses asking for money.”
Bodo Ellmers, director of Global Policy Forum’s sustainable development finance programme, said: “The idea was that it would be a quick instrument, but it was set up with such stringent criteria that the risk for investors is very low. The design, taking the number of dead people as a criteria, is very cynical.”
The scheme’s “fundamental flaw” is that it was aimed at preventing a pandemic but would only pay out when a pandemic was already underway, said Ellmers.
The World Bank said a PEF payout had been triggered after the Ebola outbreak of 2018 and 2019 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, providing a total of $61.4m to fight the disease.
The bank added that it has rolled out a series of tools to better assist countries during critical outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic threats.
It is capable of fast-tracking funds via existing projects and could fund emergency operations within three months – although in past cases, such as Ebola, it had provided support within two weeks.
Around the same time, February 2020, Washington Examiner doesn’t have the guts to put out such conclusion, but confirms pretty much everything else:
“Investors betting big against catastrophic diseases are watching the World Health Organization closely as insurance bonds tied to whether the organization labels COVID-19 a pandemic are set to mature in June.
In 2017, the World Bank designed a new way to raise money: Pandemic Emergency Financing bonds. Over $425 million worth of such bonds, which bet against a global outbreak of infectious diseases and will default if WHO declares the coronavirus a pandemic, were sold by the World Bank in its first-ever issuance of catastrophe bonds. In the event of no pandemic, investors would be paid a healthy annualized return. Meanwhile, the World Bank could use the bonds to insure itself against the risk of a global outbreak.
“As an investor, we do not want to lose money,” said Chin Liu, a portfolio manager at Amundi Pioneer, a Boston-based firm that purchased the bonds as a way to diversify the company’s $1 billion catastrophe fund. “But then, we also understand if it’s unfortunately triggered, it benefits every single person, including ourselves, to keep the virus controlled.”
For large-scale investors looking for above-average returns in a bloated market, the bonds were the next logical place to hedge against disaster. At the time of issuance, then-World Bank President Jim Yong-Kim heralded the bonds as an opportunity to leverage “capital market expertise to serve the world’s poorest people.”
The bonds were administered in two tranches, with Class A bond investors receiving a return of 6.9% annually. Class B bond investors received 11.5% annually. The World Bank raised $225 million in Class A bonds and $95 million in Class B bonds.
The investors, mainly endowments and pension funds, have long bet against natural disasters such as hurricanes, but the 2017 issuance of the bonds marked a shift in the market. Before, investors were betting on the wind speed of hurricanes, but now, they were betting on the likelihood of an infectious disease that could tear through nations across the globe.
“This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets,” read a statement from the World Bank at the time of issuance.
The conditions under which the payout on bonds will default are staggered based on how rapidly the disease spreads, the number of deaths associated with the illness, and whether the virus crosses international borders.
March 2020 -more people start to wake up to the scam.
Jacobin Mag: “Twelve weeks passed on March 23, and death is raining down on countries rich and poor. More than 770,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported worldwide, and in some places, infections and deaths are doubling every few days. Yet the World Bank says that eligible countries — so far Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Cambodia, Senegal, and Nepal — won’t know if they will get any money until April 9 at the earliest.
This is despicable. Even wealthy countries are failing to contain the deadly virus. Poor countries that, for centuries, have seen their wealth and resources pilfered and plundered by rich nations, are facing down a tidal wave of infection and death without adequate medical supplies and facilities. Millions of people in these countries have compromised immune systems due to malnutrition, live in housing and communities that make social distancing impossible, and lack even the most basic necessities of disease prevention, such as access to water and soap for handwashing.
However, in this moment of crisis, when every second counts, global capital is sitting on its hands, holding desperately needed funds hostage as investors decide whether they are required to honor their end of the deal.
The pandemic bonds were advertised by the World Bank as a great way to “tackle social ills through private investment.” Instead, the bonds are yet another example of how hollow most so-called ESG investment is. They demonstrate how private investors have an uncanny ability to profit from social ills — and how, even in times when global solidarity is desperately needed, global capital can’t seem to look past the bottom line.”
APRIL 2020 – THE WORLD IS SCANDALIZED, THE WORLD BANK ACCEPTS TO PAY A LITTLE OVER HALF THE MONEY
The beginning of the month sees surprising attacks on WB, even from usual allies, who probably have to think of their media reputation before WB’s
So, finally, on April 20, 2020, WB makes the big announcement:
“All activation criteria including outbreak size, spread and growth have been met,” the World Bank said in an update on its website, referring to the coronavirus outbreak, adding PEF bonds and swaps were expected to pay out $195.84 million. (Out of 322 milion – S.m)
A steering body will now meet to determine how to allocate the funds to so-called IDA countries – a group of 76 of the world’s poorest nations, the World Bank said. The committee is made up of Australia, Germany, Japan, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, and two IDA countries – currently Haiti and Liberia…
Campaigners have also been critical of the complex structure of the instrument, which requires five variables on the number of deaths, the velocity of its spread and its geographical spread to be reached before paying out.
This had been an obstacle to quick deployment, said Bodo Ellmers, director of sustainable development finance at Global Policy Forum, an independent policy watchdog.
“If those funds had been paid out earlier they could have been used to prevent the spread in some of those poor countries – the later you intervene the costlier it gets, in terms both of lives and money needed to remedy the situation,” he said.
Deutsche Welle reports: “The World Bank’s bond sale was 200% oversubscribed, meaning investors saw moneymaking opportunities with the high-yield returns on offer. Most buyers came from Europe, and included specialized catastrophe bond investors as well as asset managers and pension funds.
According to Bloomberg, asset managers including Bailie Gifford, Amundi and Stone Ridge Asset Management are among those who hold the riskier Class B bonds.
The interest and coupon payments made to investors have been funded largely by the donor nations Japan and Germany. The Class A bonds feature an interest rate of 7% while the Class B bonds’ rate is 11%.
According to the PEF, around $75.5 million had been paid to bondholders in the form of premiums as of August 2019. The full amount paid in interest and coupons has not been disclosed. The bonds are set to mature in July 2020.”
We later found out that investors made about 96 million in 2020. The governments who donated for this have no money of their own, they spend your money.
December – 2020 WB still pounded by media and investors for PEF’s failure:
India Times delivered the best indictment in mainstream media, from what I’ve seen so far:
How pandemic bonds became the world’s most controversial investment
In late January 2015, just after the deadliest outbreak of Ebola in history, then-World Bank President Jim Yong Kim stood in front of a group of Georgetown University students and professors to introduce a new approach to fighting pandemics.
Fresh from the annual gathering of power brokers and policy makers in Davos, Kim described a new type of financial product – “pandemic bonds” – that he hoped would persuade private investors to swell the World Bank’s coffers. …
Five years later, Summers had some different words for Kim, though you probably won’t hear the former World Bank president repeat them in public. The approach was “a dumb idea,” Summers said in a February 2020 email to a Harvard colleague seen by Bloomberg News. Modeled on catastrophe debt that pays insurance claims on natural disasters, the program was too complicated and ultimately unnecessary, he suggested, “like me insuring my toaster.”
Trumpeted by the World Bank at their launch as an innovative example of a public-private partnership, pandemic bonds have since become the subject of intense criticism for failing to divert money fast enough to battle deadly waves of Ebola and Covid-19. Academics from Harvard to the London School of Economics have lambasted the program for being ineffective and expensive, and the World Bank has confirmed it won’t issue a second round of the debt.
…
But the pandemic bonds weren’t designed to default at the earliest sign of a pandemic. The 386-page prospectus for the debt covered a range of outbreaks including Ebola, influenza and coronaviruses and spelled out very specific conditions for writedown – an effort to automate the typically political process of distributing funds. The list of triggers was long and complex, balancing investors’ desires for a long payout stream with the World Bank’s need to disburse the money to countries that need it. “We had to think through how this instrument should actually function, what kind of diseases should be addressed,” said Ivo Menzinger, who leads the group responsible for public sector solutions at Swiss Re. “During that process it got considerably broader.”…
when Ebola returned in 2018 to ravage West Africa again, the bonds failed to trigger. The virus killed almost 2,300 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but per the criteria in the prospectus, it didn’t spread far enough, fast enough to qualify as a pandemic. In an effort to avoid political grappling over donor funds, the pandemic bonds relied on mechanical triggers that failed to fire. So investors kept getting paid interest and retained their principal. Meanwhile, the World Bank allocated $61 million from the PEF’s “cash window” – the discretionary portion of money funded by donor contributions – to help fight the outbreaks.
Even when Covid-19 began to sweep the globe earlier this year, it was unclear whether the bonds would get written down. The coronavirus had killed almost 150,000 people in dozens of countries before the casualty rates aligned with the “exponential growth” requirement set out in the bond prospectus. On April 16, more than five weeks after the WHO had declared a global pandemic, AIR Worldwide issued a report confirming that the conditions for a writedown had been met, diverting $132.5 million to the World Bank for disbursement. A further $63.3 million came from the swaps struck with Munich Re and Swiss Re.
“The triggers had to be late and they had to be convoluted and complex to reduce the probability that the financing would be triggered,” says Olga Jonas, a critic of the bonds who worked for more than three decades at the World Bank …
Meanwhile, the World Bank quietly announced it would not be issuing a second round of the debt. Unlike the launch of the pandemic bonds, the news came with little fanfare; it was just one line added to their website.
“The issues raised by COVID-19 are profound and require a deep rethinking of our pandemic response infrastructure,” Kim said. “If we can say that the PEF got it wrong, it wouldn’t be the only institution or instrument that got it wrong.”
Learning what we have learned about the World Bank worrying about an impending economic collapse and, in parallel, setting up this pandemic, one may be confused how all this falls together in the grand scheme. Failing to see it is due to overcomplication, I suspect. Brush off the meaningless details and go for the essential questions:
How did this work, most basically? Fabricated disease fearmongering and unrealistic promises persuaded some fools to transfer money to some con artists, under various pretenses. WHO benefitted? The con artists and the Great Reset budgets. Who lost? The total morons who haven’t yet learned why it’s not good to swim with sharks, no matter how you see yourself. And if it’s not good to swim with them, giving them money sounds even dumber. Where have we seen this “business model” before? Vaccines / WHO / GAVI…
EPILOGUE
APRIL 2021: WHO BOSS MENTIONS THE BONDS ON THE LIST OF THEIR PAST SUCCESSES
Around min. 13 in the video below.
MARCH 2021: WB RELAUNCHES CATASTROPHE BONDS
POP QUIZ: IF YOU PAID ATTENTION, BESIDES CORONAVIRUSES, WHAT OTHER VIRUSES ARE COVERED BY THESE BONDS?
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Digital Davos 2021, the World Economic Forum annual reunion is about to start in a few hours. Online, because they don’t have the guts to gather in person after they’ve just crashed the world on our backs.
If you get what I did here, please spread it, maybe it reaches some oligarchs and helps them feel something. Words are an approximate quote from some WEF auxiliary personnel, forgot her name. #GreaterReset #RejectTheReset #TheGreatAwakening
PS: You can’t trust the judgement on anyone who dresses like this for an official event.
PPS: I went through the comments on Greta’s Youtube video for Davos 2021, because someone told me there’s no positive feedback at all. I found 11 positive comments. Out of 770. The stock market chaos is us too. This is just the spark. How many timed did I tell you…?
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The video below, recorded in September 2020, has been published as a Ted Talk for South-East Asia, on 12th of January 2021. It features a prominent annex of the World Bank / IMF, another soulless muppet named Michael O’Sullivan, economist and “land thematic leader” at World Bank’s Gender Innovation Lab. This came only two weeks ahead of of the Digital Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, where the official launch of The Great Reset is planned.
I got a few main takes: * European Union is on its deathbed, at least in this shape and form. Looks like the West wants to close its borders, had enough multiculturalism. * China, China, China! And some other people. * Orange Man Bad * No mention of The Great Reset. * Heard “New World Order” about six times, I will really count * End of globalization, but Papa Schwab has already taught us that about two years ago. * They’re totally improvising and they’re as confused as we are, just as I predicted. These psychos are disconnected from humanity, emotionally underdeveloped, intellectually dense but primitive. But there’s more to it, ambiguity included, listen carefully because this dude is dropping some serious inside intel, unlike more famous alphabet soups. He does it on command, of course, but he gives us priceless clues nevertheless! You have to understand he’s a sock puppet and the Rothschilds need the peasants to hear this. What actual facts triggered this reaction from the overlords? This is the first question you need to ask yourself when you watch official communications from your masters. My best hunch is that they got tired of Europe, too many problems per square foot, so EU is on its own while they go in a honeymoon with China, as their other puppet parties in the White house now. But I don’t know that, as of now, just rings most plausible, given all I know so far.
UPDATE: Our analysis was correct
BOMBSHELL PAPER FROM GERMANY SHOWS EU HAS BEEN HARDLY HOLDING TOGETHER FOR QUITE A WHILE FIVE COUNTRIES LIKELY TO LEAVE EU SOON-ISH!
Flashback resources:
2010
2011
2011
2015
“European Union leaders raised the possibility of making Bulgaria’s Kristalina Georgieva, the chief executive officer of the World Bank, the next president of the EU Commission, two people familiar with the discussions said.
The position is one of three top roles up for grabs in the coming months, alongside the presidencies of the European Central Bank and the European Council. With governments engaged in intense horsetrading to fill the positions, leaders discussed potential names at a summit in Sibiu, Romania last week, with Georgieva emerging as a strong contender for the commission role, the people said.” – Bloomberg, March 2019
November 2020
Running Order
Introduction and opening remarks Gallina A. Vincelette, Director for EU Countries, World Bank
Europe 4.0 Presentation Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Senior Economic Adviser, World Bank
Panel session:
Andreas Tegge, Head of Global Government Relations, SAP
Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, Director General, DIGITALEUROPE
Elisabeth Gruber, Director for the Department of International Institutions at the Austrian Ministry of Finance
Peteris Zilgalvis, Head of Unit for Digital Innovation and Blockchain, DG CNECT, European Commission
Vassil Terziev, Managing Partner at Eleven Ventures and Co-Founder of Telerik
Panel Moderator: Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Senior Economic Adviser, World Bank
Closing remarks: Gallina A. Vincelette, Director for EU Countries, World Bank
The World Bank offers its clients in the EU two core products— finance and knowledge. Four countries currently benefit from our full portfolio of instruments, including lending and guarantees: Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Romania. Projects for each country are guided by a full strategy document called a Country Partnership Framework. Work with other EU Member States is primarily realized through advisory services, such as economic analysis or technical assistance, financed by clients themselves (known as Reimbursable Advisory Services, RAS) or through trust funds (TFs) set up by the European Commission. Lending commitments in the EU totaled more than US$10 billion since 2012. Over the same period, RAS and TF activities in the EU totaled well over US$100 million.
I very rarely make guesses and speculations, but as a Romania-born, in the former communist block, with years of journalistic experience there, I see this most probable scenario: WB won’t abandon its strings on EU, but will shift focus and resources to Asia, Africa or Argentina. As it drifts away, WB will take with it the countries mentioned above and try form a separate conclave and social experimentation ground. But I can’t put too much money on it, we’re in a vortex of forces and possibilities that can shift either way any minute.
As I find out more, I’ll add it here soon. To properly put this in context, please read at least these two reports we did last year:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
He’s a former member of Bilderberg’s Steering Group. Unsurprisingly, I admit, but wait.
Bilderberg is governed by a Steering Committee which designates a Chairman; members are elected for a term of four years and can be re-elected. There are no other members of the Bilderberg conference.The Chair’s main responsibilities are to chair the Steering Committee and to prepare with the Steering Committee the conference program, the selection of participants. He also makes suggestions to the Steering Committee regarding its composition. The Executive Secretary reports to the Chairman. – Source
Last few years, he’s been preparing to step down from the WEF leadership, which will be taken over by a team. We don’t know who’s in this team, but I’ll shave my head if China isn’t well represented.
2015 interview
4.
Klaus Schwab is also very involved with another elite organization that studies how to change The Universal Declaration of Human Rights so they can harmonize it with the globalist agenda that includes a global citizenship, among others.
The Global Citizenship Commission was convened, under the leadership of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the auspices of NYUs Global Institute for Advanced Study, to re-examine the spirit and stirring words of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The result this volume offers a 21st-century commentary on the original document, furthering the work of human rights and illuminating the ideal of global citizenship. What does it mean for each of us to be members of a global community? Since 1948, the Declaration has stood as a beacon and a standard for a better world. Yet the work of making its ideals real is far from over. Hideous and systemic human rights abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate around the world. Too many people, particularly those in power, are hostile to human rights or indifferent to their claims. Meanwhile, our global interdependence deepens. Bringing together world leaders and thinkers in the fields of politics, ethics, and philosophy, the Commission set out to develop a common understanding of the meaning of global citizenship one that arises from basic human rights and empowers every individual in the world. This landmark report affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seeks to renew the 1948 enterprise, and the very ideal of the human family, for our day and generation. Members of the Global Citizenship Commission include: K. Anthony Appiah, Laurel Bellows, Nicolas Berggruen, Paul Boghossian, Gordon Brown (Chair), Craig Calhoun, Wang Chenguang, Mohamed ElBaradei, Fonna Forman, Andrew Forrest, Ronald M. George, Asma Jahangir, John Kufuor, Graça Machel, Catherine ORegan, Ricken Patel, Emma Rothschild, Robert Rubin, Jonathan Sacks, Kailash Satyarthi, Klaus Schwab , Amartya Sen, John Sexton, Robert Shrum, Jeremy Waldron, Joseph Weiler, Rowan Williams, Diane C. Yu (Executive Director).”-Source -Publisher’s press release.
On 9/11, the founder and president of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, was having breakfast with Rabbi Arthur Schneier at his Park East Synagogue in New York when the two jets struck the World Trade Center, Schneier said. Schneier, who heads the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, a coalition of business and religious leaders in New York, had intended to discuss increasing the participation of religious leaders at the economic forum. After the attack, the notion seemed even more urgent. With Schneier´s assistance, Schwab decided to commemorate the world disaster by moving his forum — traditionally held in the Swiss ski resort of Davos — to New York City, Schneier said. And he doubled the number of religious leaders to 40, including eight Jews. While Western nations have distanced religion from public life in recent decades, the forum´s new line is to embrace religion, understand its traditions and glean its wisdom. As international companies expand their markets and governments and corporations see peace as essential to progress, leaders increasingly are giving religion a role in enhancing international stability. – Source
I don’t know when you started counting, but Klaus Schwab was already at “Globalism 4.0” during the World Government Summit of 2019. Did you even know there was a World Government Summit? I admit I’ve missed this one until recently.
Indeed, he has declared “old-school” globalization completed in 2017. Plebs are still accommodating with the concept.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
“In The Unfinished Global Revolution former United Nations Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch-Brown diagnoses the central global predicament of the 21st century: as we’ve become more integrated, we’ve also become less governed. Domestic problems facing individual nations—from unemployment to environmental distress—increasingly arise from international roots. As national politicians lose control to impersonal global forces they’ll be forced to become more effective participants in such international mechanisms as the United Nations, which may offer the only viable solutions. Meanwhile, ad hoc arrangements between NGOs, civil society, and the private sector are more and more often filling the gap created by the failures of individual governments. In the wake of the worldwide economic crisis of 2008, many have been forced to acknowledge that a global economy needs global institutions to govern it. And what’s true for finance, Malloch-Brown argues, is surely true for public health, poverty, and climate change. The Unfinished Global Revolution is a call to embrace more powerful international institutions as well as the values needed to underpin a truly globalist agenda: the rule of law, human rights, and opportunity for all.” Book official press release
Smartmatic Chairmain admits their technology is partly licensed from Dominion (2015, Philippines TV)SourceSourceThis is from 2018Source
Smartmatic created by Chavez, but went AGAINST Maduro – CEO 2017 press statement (AP)
Associated Press, 2 Aug 2017: “The turnout figures in Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly election were “tampered with”, the director of a company that provides electoral support services to the country said on Tuesday. Speaking in London, Antonio Mugica, the CEO and Director of Smartmatic, said the company estimated “the difference between the actual participation and the one announced by the authorities is at least one million votes” Smartmatic was a company created by Venezuelans in Caracas providing electronic voting machines to the late President Hugo Chavez. In recent years it has branched out to provide the same services to countries across the world, while continuing to provide support for elections in Venezuela. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called the vote for the constitutional assembly in May after weeks of protests fed by anger at his government over food shortages, triple-digit inflation and high crime. Many people accuse the ruling party of corruption and mismanagement. Tensions have escalated since government-allied electoral authorities said more than eight million people voted on Sunday, a turnout figure that was disputed by the opposition and independent analysts and condemned by many nations in the region and beyond.”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
This is a late party for Silview.media’s first anniversary. We missed the date too, in the current turmoils. But we wanted to give you a special treat. There’s no happiness in this birthday, Covidiots stole it all, but there is a glimpse of hope, knowledge still gets through the censorship barrage and knowledge is freedom.
From Davos 2013. In 2023 he’ll probably say the same about US and other states
So many people noticed that China and the World Bank / IMF (read Rothschild Dynasty) subjects not only stopped poking each other, they seem to dance in sync. They’re not wrong, Kissinger has been working on this for over 50 years now and then Soros upped the game until the balance tilted in 2015, the year of the WB/IMF Summit (clan gathering) in Hong Kong.
China Daily columnist
Don’t believe what we say, research what we say and make your own minds is our motto, and for the coming year we’ll make it more visible. But in this post it’s not us saying any of this stuff… In fact this write up is done.
2010: “We need a NWO with China among leaders”
Interesting that he mentioned it without being asked…
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
This life-changing information has been sitting on UK Government’s website for over 15 months now. People find out about it from us, while their officials keep yapping 24/7 about an infection we can’t test for and a virus that’s never been properly isolated and purified in a lab as per Koch’s Postulate. Of course, this plan is not limited to UK, it’s global. Looks like democracy is as real as Rona, your informed consent matters and governments care.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is not a buzzword, it’s official policy in every state controlled by the World Bank /IMF / Rothschild dynasty. It’s been so for long now. And The Great Reset gives you the map for it, in that Technocrat language that is translated to functional-illiterate sheeple as whatever they need to hear to stay obedient, while the sheeple-herders get actual live-stock management advice.
Policy paper
Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Published 11 June 2019
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy by Command of Her Majesty
Excerpts selected by Silview.media, read the whole thing please!
Foreword
The world is changing faster than ever. New technology is creating new industries, changing existing ones and transforming the way things are made. We need a more agile approach to regulation, that supports innovation while protecting citizens and the environment.
We are a nation of innovators. Throughout our history we have seized the opportunities to create a better future for ourselves. In the First Industrial Revolution, British engineer Thomas Savery’s pump paved the way for industrial use of steam power. In the second, British scientist Michael Faraday’s electromagnetic rotary devices formed the basis for practical electricity use. In the third, British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web.
Technological breakthroughs in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies are now heralding a Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the power to reshape almost every sector in every country. Our Industrial Strategy positions the UK to make the most of this global transformation.
Our regulatory system is second to none, as recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Regulatory Policy Outlook in 2018. It protects citizens and enables business to thrive. Together with our global research prowess, world-class universities and open, competitive markets, it attracts firms to innovate and invest in the UK. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution changes the way we live and work, it is vital that our regulatory system keeps pace.
This white paper sets out our plan to maintain our world-leading regulatory system in this period of rapid technological change. We will support and stimulate new products, services and business models, with greater space for experimentation. We will uphold safeguards for people and the environment and engage the public in how innovation is regulated. And we will maintain the stable, proportionate regulatory approach the UK is rightly known for.
Our openness to technology and innovation continues as we leave the European Union.
This white paper is our plan to secure our success.
Rt Hon Greg Clark MP Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Championing innovation
We need to take action to maintain our world-beating regulatory system and realise the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is of a scale, speed and complexity that is unprecedented. It is characterised by a fusion of technologies – such as artificial intelligence, gene editing and advanced robotics – that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological worlds. It will disrupt nearly every industry in every country, creating new opportunities and challenges for people, places and businesses to which we must respond.
Our modern Industrial Strategy seeks to put the UK at the crest of this global wave of technological innovation, bringing the benefits to business and consumers alike. Our foundations are strong. The UK ranks in the top 5 in the Global Innovation Index1. We are a global leader in science and research and home to 4 of the top 10 universities in the world2. We have a thriving start-up environment and are home to many of the world’s most R&D-intensive businesses. We develop and attract some of the most talented people in the world.
We want to build on our strengths in developing and deploying ideas to become the world’s most innovative economy. We want to raise our total investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, the biggest increase on record. We have set 4 Grand Challenges for the UK government and wider economy to seize the opportunities presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges
We will put the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution.
We will maximise the advantages for UK industry of the shift to clean growth.
We will become a world leader in shaping the future of mobility.
We will harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society.
Our regulatory system is a national asset. We are ranked 9th among 190 economies for the ease of doing business in the UK3, with the quality of our regulatory practices given the highest overall country score by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)4. We protect the natural environment and ensure the safety and employment rights of citizens. We also provide the certainty needed for businesses to thrive.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution presents challenges for regulatory systems across the globe, as they struggle to keep pace with rapid, complex technological innovation. In our Industrial Strategy, we committed to develop an agile regulatory approach that supports innovation and protects citizens and the environment. We need to act now to maintain our world-beating regulatory system in this period of transformational change.
regulations
We need to reshape our regulatory approach so that it supports and stimulates innovation that benefits citizens and the economy. At present, only 29% of businesses believe that the government’s approach to regulation facilitates innovative products and services being efficiently brought to market 9. The need for reform is urgent: 92% of businesses from a range of sectors think they will feel a negative impact if regulators don’t evolve to keep pace with disruptive change in the next 2 to 3 years10.
Other countries are rapidly reforming their regulatory environments to support future innovation, with Nesta describing these anticipatory approaches as ‘an increasingly important source of competitive advantage in the global economy’11. By taking an anticipatory approach we can give people faster access to innovations that can transform their lives and attract the ideas, talent and investment to the UK that will drive our future prosperity.
We are turning things round. The Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox has kick-started a wave of regulator-led initiatives to support new products and services to come to market and been widely emulated across the globe. Our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is accelerating the change, with £10 million invested in 15 projects to support technologies from autonomous shipping to virtual lawyers. We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum to shape the global governance of technological innovation.
we need to be on the front foot in reforming regulation in response to technological innovation
we need to ensure that our regulatory system is sufficiently flexible and outcomes-focused to enable innovation to thrive
we need to enable greater experimentation, testing and trialling of innovations under regulatory supervision
we need to support innovators to navigate the regulatory landscape and comply with regulation
we need to build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated
we need to work with partners across the globe to reduce regulatory barriers to trade in innovative products and services
This white paper sets out our plan to tackle these 6 challenges and seize the opportunity presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We want to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that supports the emergence of new products, services and business models for the benefit of all. The white paper will be matched later this year with papers describing how we will modernise consumer and competition regulation in response to the transformation in our economy.
Supporting the emergence of smart systems
Our energy system is changing rapidly. There is more low carbon generation, such as power from solar and wind, which produces different amounts of electricity depending on the weather. It is increasingly decentralised, with generation and batteries located in or near people’s homes and businesses. New technologies such as electricity storage, smart heating controls and electric vehicles are emerging which can be used to help balance the electricity system. However, our regulatory system was not developed with these new technologies in mind.
As laid out in the Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan, developed jointly with the energy regulator Ofgem, we are working to develop a best in class regulatory framework that supports these innovations. We are working with industry to reform markets, legislation, licences, codes and standards.
The drive towards a smart and flexible energy system is an important tenet of the government’s Clean Growth and Industrial Strategies. The changes promise to provide significant public benefits, from lower energy bills to cleaner air and lower carbon emissions. By 2050, a smarter and more flexible system could save the UK £17-40 billion.
Accelerating the introduction of self-driving vehicles
The Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV) is overseeing a groundbreaking programme to prepare the UK’s regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles ahead of their introduction on UK roads. It has developed an open regulatory approach that safeguards citizens and supports the development of the technology as it evolves.
This includes the recently updated world-leading Code of Practice for testing automated vehicles. Testing any level of automated vehicles on public roads is possible, provided they comply with the law, including having a driver, in or out of the vehicle, a roadworthy vehicle, and appropriate insurance. The recent update to the Code announced that the government would introduce an application process for more advanced trials. This will facilitate the development of the technology, without the need for repeated changes to regulation.
CCAV is leading the charge in considering the wider implications of the introduction of self-driving vehicles. It has introduced legislation to insure the use of self-driving vehicles through the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, so that victims of collisions get quick and easy access to compensation. It has asked the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to undertake a joint regulatory review to identify further legal obstacles to the widespread introduction of self-driving vehicles. This project is consulting widely and will provide a final report in 2021.
CCAV is also working with the British Standards Institution to deliver a programme of standards to help accelerate development and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The programme seeks to address public safety and reliability concerns and supports the UK’s reputation as a centre of excellence for vehicle testing, design and manufacturing.
CCAV’s programme has helped to put the UK at the forefront of this emerging industry and, with the Department for Transport, given the UK lasting influence in international debates on the regulation of automated vehicles.
Our plan
We will create an outcome-focused, flexible regulatory system that enables innovation to thrive while protecting citizens and the environment. We will match this with clarity for business through better use of regulatory guidance, codes of practice and industry standards.
We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered as we:
develop and assess policy options
consult and engage on policy proposals
design, introduce and implement legislation
monitor, evaluate and review legislation
We will encourage policymakers to consider the governance of innovation in a holistic way, noting the role that alternatives to regulation can play in providing government, citizens and businesses with assurance. We will encourage policymakers to reflect on when the right time is to introduce regulation21 .
Our approach will encourage policymakers to focus on real-world outcomes, with legislation that provides flexibility for experimentation and adaptation. Prescriptive regulatory requirements would only be set out in legislation where necessary to provide important protections. Where possible, alternative approaches such as statutory guidance will set out requirements so that as technology changes the system can respond in a timely and flexible manner.
We will develop tools for policymakers to support them to consider these issues; we will also develop improved analytical methods to capture the impact of regulation on innovation. During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing significant new regulatory legislation.
Making the UK the safest place in the world to be online
The internet is a powerful force for good. Combined with new technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is changing society perhaps more than any previous technological revolution – growing the economy, making us more productive, and raising living standards.
Alongside these new opportunities come new challenges and risks. The internet can be used to spread terrorist material; it can be a tool for abuse and bullying; and it can be used to undermine civil discourse, objective news and intellectual property. As set out in our Digital Charter, we are committed to making the UK both the safest place to be online and the best place to start and grow a digital business.
In April, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office published a white paper to tackle a range of both legal and illegal harms, from cyberbullying to online child sexual exploitation. In keeping with our ambition to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that encourages the tech sector and provides stability for businesses, the white paper sets out an outcomes-focused legislative approach that will support future technological change.
From AI to blockchain, data-driven financial technologies (FinTech) are changing the way that we bank, invest, insure and even pay for things. The UK’s FinTech sector is booming, underpinned by our world-leading financial services sector and thriving tech scene.
In 2016, the Financial Conduct Authority seized the initiative to support this emerging industry by establishing the world’s first ‘regulatory sandbox’: a safe space where firms can work with the regulator to trial innovative products, services and business models with consumers without having to meet all the usual requirements for compliance. Since its establishment, the sandbox has received more than 3 times as many applications than places available. Access to the sandbox has helped reduce the time and cost of getting innovative ideas to market (in the first year, 90% of firms progressed towards wider market launch) and improve access to finance (40% received investment during or following their sandbox tests).
FinTech firm Asset Hedge introduced a web-based platform offering forex options to assist small businesses and individuals to protect against losses incurred because of currency fluctuations. They successfully completed the sandbox programme to become a fully regulated company. Assure Hedge founder and chief executive Barry McCarthy said:
“We have effectively been given the same regulation that large banks have, so it really allows us to compete with the big players.”
It’s not just business that benefits. Consumers benefit from new products which have better safeguards built in up front, while the regulator benefits from greater insight into technological innovation. The model has been emulated by more than 20 countries across the globe and translated to sectors from health to transport.
From smart shipping to AI-powered legal services
The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is backing the Future of Mobility and AI and Data Grand Challenges through ground breaking projects to enable technologies from smart shipping to AI-powered legal services.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken steps to facilitate innovation in the legal industry, inviting firms to develop new business models in a controlled way. The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will enable the Solicitors Regulation Authority to work with the innovation foundation Nesta to accelerate ethical AI-powered innovations, with a focus on legal services for small businesses and consumers where AI and automation can have transformative impact.
Paul Philip, Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said:
“Smart use of technology could help tackle the problem that far too many people struggle to access expert legal advice. It will help us further build on our work to encourage new ways of delivering legal services, benefiting both the public and small business.”
In the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will create the Maritime Autonomy Regulation Lab (MAR Lab) to bring together industry specialists, academics and government to pioneer new regulatory approaches and make data available to the emerging smart shipping industry.
The project will inform UK legislation for a domestic framework for autonomous vessels to attract international business and support and promote testing in the UK’s territorial waters. It will also support government efforts to establish a new proactive and adaptive international regulatory framework for autonomous vessels at the International Maritime Organisation.
New discoveries and the application of new technologies mean we can diagnose illnesses earlier and more accurately, create new treatments and ensure existing ones are more effective.
The UK is extraordinarily well placed to play a leading role in this revolution in the life sciences, with strengths in innovation, research, healthcare and business. To support these innovations to come to market, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Innovation Office provides a single point of access to regulatory advice on the development of innovative medicines, medical devices or manufacturing processes. The service has grown in popularity since its inception in 2013, receiving 190 enquiries in 2018.
The service helps to make regulatory information clear and accessible to those who are working on innovative research, supporting a key goal in the second Life Sciences Sector Deal to ensure the UK remains one of the best places in the world to develop life sciences projects, to protect health and improve lives.
The service has helped secure significant investments into the UK life sciences industry. John Parker, Director at AstraZeneca said:
“We genuinely believe that having easy access to MHRA in this manner provides a real competitive advantage to UK based companies”
In the Life Sciences Sector Deal, the MHRA committed to engage with industry to understand how it can further develop its offer by the end of 2019.
Our plan
Entrepreneurs and innovative firms should be able to find their way through the UK’s regulatory landscape with ease and receive timely, joined-up feedback on novel propositions.
We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals. We will ensure that this is integrated with action to enhance the government’s digital offer to business in areas such as tax, grants, trade and investment, and build awareness of the available offer.
Initiatives such as the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox have helped reduce the time and cost of bringing new products and services to market and enabled businesses to win contracts and secure access to finance. We are funding greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, to ensure that innovators who are developing novel proposals with potential for wider economic, societal or environmental benefit are supported to do so.
Leading the public dialogue on mitochondrial replacement treatment
Mitochondria are present in almost all human cells and generate the majority of their energy supply. Unhealthy mitochondria can cause genetic disorders known as mitochondrial disease, which can have devastating effects on the families that carry them. For many patients with mitochondrial diseases, preventing the transmission of the disease to their children is a key concern.
In 2012, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority undertook a sustained engagement programme to determine public acceptability of the use of mitochondrial replacement treatment, characterised in the media as ‘3 parent babies’. The programme included a breadth of engagement tools, including workshops, a public survey, open meetings and focus groups. It invited trusted scientific figures to take part in the debate.
The regulator found that despite certain ethical concerns there was general support for permitting mitochondria replacement in the UK, so long as it is safe enough to offer in a treatment setting and is done so within a regulatory framework. Following legislation, in 2017 the UK became the first country in the world to license mitochondrial donation techniques to allow women who carry the risk of serious mitochondrial disease to avoid passing it onto their children.
Our plan
We want innovators and the public to have confidence in the UK’s regulatory regime. We will build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated.
We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation. For example, where technologies pose complex ethical or moral considerations greater public engagement may be appropriate to shape government thinking on appropriate regulatory frameworks. Government departments and regulators will continue to lead public engagement on their policies, working with expert bodies such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
As part of its role, the Better Regulation Executive will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation, working with partners such as Sciencewise. The Better Regulation Executive will build capability in novel and creative public engagement techniques that go beyond public consultation in this important area.
Engaging the public on regulation of drones
Drone technology is advancing rapidly with the potential to perform critical services in everyday life – from transporting urgent medical supplies to bridge inspection and repair. UK cities and regions need to consider what they want the future of drone applications to look like. PwC estimates that by 2030 drone use could increase UK GDP by £42 billion.
With support from the government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the innovation foundation Nesta funded public use analysis of drones in 5 cities for activities from inspecting burning buildings to traffic incident response. It worked with the government and the Civil Aviation Authority and convened local stakeholders to assess demand and identified the technical, economic and regulatory success factors for safe drone deployment at scale in cities.
The programme has concluded that there is demand for drones, which can fulfil socially beneficial goals. However, there are regulatory challenges that need to be solved – from how to deploy drones over long distances to what is publicly acceptable in terms of noise, privacy, safety and other issues. These issues are being considered as part of the Department for Transport’s Aviation Strategy 2050 green paper, looking at how a flexible regulatory framework can be established to support transport innovation under the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge and beyond.
.
Credit: Innovate UK
Setting global standards on smart cities
Many cities face challenges in ensuring sustainable growth, with issues ranging from provision of water and energy to management of healthcare and transport. A range of innovation is emerging to create the smart cities of the future.
The British Standards Institution has developed a ground-breaking series of standards on smart cities, in collaboration with the Future Cities Catapult. International recognition of the smart cities standards programme contributes to the UK’s reputation in advanced urban services and helps shape the global market in line with established UK good practice.
Downloaded in over 60 countries, UK smart city standards are being adopted as international standards. In China, the world’s largest smart cities market, the British Standards Institution has set up a cooperation agreement on smart cities with the Standards Administration of China to develop a common approach to smart cities between UK and Chinese cities and companies.
Conclusion
This white paper is our long-term strategy for maintaining our world-leading regulatory environment as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation will drive its delivery, supported by the Better Regulation Executive.
The white paper is a plan for the whole of government, shaping how we will regulate in areas from healthcare to transport. We want to give businesses confidence to innovate and invest in the UK and give citizens confidence in our protections.
In addressing these issues we respect the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will work with our partners in the devolved administrations and local authorities to share our innovation-enabling approach and ensure that every part of the UK benefits from the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Summary of commitments
Facing the future
We will establish a Regulatory Horizons Council to identify the implications of technological innovation and advise the government on regulatory reform needed to support its rapid and safe introduction.
The Council will prepare a regular report on innovation across the economy, with recommendations on priorities for regulatory reform to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future.
The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation, chaired by the Business Secretary, will oversee the government response to the Council’s recommendations.
Focusing on outcomes
We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered during the development of policy, introduction and implementation of legislation and its evaluation and review.
During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing new legislation.
We will promote new ways to trigger when post-implementation reviews of legislation are undertaken to ensure that legislation does not inadvertently ‘lock in’ outdated technologies or approaches.
We will develop tools for regulators to support them to review their guidance, codes of practice and other regulatory mechanisms to ensure that they provide flexibility for those businesses that want to innovate, while ensuring a clear route to compliance.
We will support business, policymakers and regulators to make effective use of standards where appropriate as a complement to legislation.
We will invite the Office for Product Safety and Standards, British Standards Institution, National Physical Laboratory and UK Accreditation Service to set out their vision for how the development and review of standards should evolve as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Supporting experimentation
We will examine the case for expanding the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund in future to help regulators to keep pace with technological innovation and enable the emergence of new products, services and business models.
We will examine the case for extending the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund to local authorities in future, in order to help them support greater testing and trialling of innovations in their area.
We have established a Regulators’ Innovation Network to help foster a culture of experimentation across regulators and share best practice.
We will ask regulators to go further to evaluate the impact of their initiatives on innovation and consider whether to commence statutory reporting requirements for regulators on the impact of the economic growth duty.
We will survey innovators and regulators to identify data that could be shared to enable disruptors to enter markets and deliver better outcomes for all.
Improving access
We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals.
We have financed greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund.
We will scope and consult on measures to enhance co-ordination between regulators to ensure that innovations are guided smoothly through the system.
We will consider whether the Regulation Navigator should include functions for businesses to raise where rules or processes are inappropriately constraining innovation, so that regulators can review, clarify and potentially amend their approach.
We will invite regulators to develop metrics on the service that they provide to innovators.
We will ensure that data from specialist advice services is fed into the Regulatory Horizons Council, so that it can advise on where regulatory change or additional investment may be needed to enable innovation to thrive.
Building dialogue
We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation.
We will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation.
We will encourage regulators to build public dialogue into experimentation initiatives (such as those financed through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund), so that public views are considered as new products, services and business models are trialled.
Leading the world
We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco to develop regulatory approaches for new technologies.
We are working with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to explore the regulatory challenges of the emerging digital economy.
We will improve awareness of the effects of regulation on trade among government departments and regulators so that the impacts of regulatory divergence are systematically considered.
We will seek to include ambitious chapters on good regulatory practices and regulatory co-operation in future free trade agreements that the UK negotiates following our exit from the European Union.
We will continue working alongside other nations in the international and regional standards organisations, to help secure globally accepted standards for innovators to collaborate effectively in international markets.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 
