Altruistic World Online Library

Steven Clark Rockefeller
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/5/20

-- Planet of the Humans, written, produced and directed by Jeff Gibbs
-- Review: [Untitled] Reviewed Work: Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue, by Steven C. Rockefeller, John C. Elder, by Leslie A. Muray
-- Rockefeller Brothers Fund, by Wikipedia
-- Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue, Edited by Steven C. Rockefeller and John C. Elder
-- Is There a Buddhist Philosophy of Nature? in Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Ryúken Williams, eds. Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, 1997, by Malcolm David Eckel
-- William Rockefeller, by Answers.com
-- Bureau of Social Hygiene, by The Rockefeller Foundation Digital History
-- Rockefeller Foundation, by Wikipedia

Steven Clark Rockefeller
Born: April 19, 1936 (age 84), United States
Alma mater: Princeton University; Union Theological Seminary; Columbia University
Occupation: Professor emeritus at Middlebury College
Spouse(s): Anne-Marie Rasmussen (divorced); Barbara Bellows (m. 1991)
Children 4
Parent(s): Nelson Rockefeller; Mary Clark

Steven Clark Rockefeller (born April 19, 1936) is a fourth-generation member of the Rockefeller family, and a former dean of Middlebury College. He is the oldest living member of the family who still carries the Rockefeller name, and has been the oldest living Rockefeller since his Uncle David Rockefeller died (at the age of 101) in March 2017.

Rockefeller is a philanthropist who focuses on education, Planned Parenthood, human rights and environmental causes. He is a trustee of the Asian Cultural Council and an advisory trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. He has also served as a director of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

Biography

He is the second-oldest son of former United States Vice President Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller and his first wife, Mary Rockefeller.

Rockefeller attended prestigious Deerfield Academy and received his A.B. degree from Princeton University, where he was president of The Ivy Club and also received the Moses Taylor Pyne Honor Prize. Subsequently, he obtained an M.Div. degree from the Union Theological Seminary in New York City, and a Ph.D. degree in philosophy of religion from Columbia University. He is a professor emeritus of Religion at Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont where he previously served as college dean and chairman of the religion department.[1]

In 1959, he married Anne-Marie Rasmussen in Søgne, Norway; Anne-Marie was a former employee in the Rockefeller household. The couple had three children before divorcing. Steven Rockefeller remarried and had one child before the marriage ended in divorce. He then wed Barbara Bellows on May 11, 1991.

In 1976, he began an intensive study of Zen Buddhism, making frequent week-long visits to the Zen Center in Rochester, where he was a trustee.

He coordinated the drafting of the Earth Charter for the Earth Charter Commission and Earth Council. In 2005, he moderated the international launch of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) (2005–14) in its headquarters in New York, launched by UNESCO and attended by Nane Annan, the wife of Secretary General Kofi Annan.[2] He is Co-Chair of Earth Charter International Council and has written numerous essays on the Earth Charter, available at the Earth Charter website.[3]

Publications

He has edited or written three books:

• The Christ and the Bodhisattva (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). Edited by Donald S. Lopez Jr., and Steven C. Rockefeller. State University of New York Press (1987)
• Rockefeller, Steven C. John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism. Columbia University Press (1991)
• Spirit and Nature -- Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue: An Interfaith Dialogue. Edited by Steven C. Rockefeller and John C. Elder. Beacon Press (1992).

Further reading

• Rasmussen, Anne-Marie. There Was Once a Time of Islands, Illusions, and Rockefellers. New York and London: Harcourt Brace, 1975.

References

1. "Trustees: Steven C. Rockefeller". Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Archived from the original on 2010-06-16. Retrieved 2010-01-25.
2. "International Launch of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014)" (Press release). UNESCO. 2005-03-01. Archived from the original on 2005-09-29. Retrieved 2010-01-25.
3. "The Earth Charter Initiative-Website". Earth Charter Initiative, dates?

External links

• The Cousins A 1984 New York Times profile of prominent members of the fourth-generation Rockefellers. (requires subscription)
• Steven C. Rockefeller - Rockefeller Brothers Fund website

******************************

Open Letter to the [Middlebury] President and Trustees
by Steven C. Rockefeller
The Middlebury Campus: Middlebury College's only student-run newspaper
October 12, 2015 / October 21, 2015

For five decades Middlebury College has been an outstanding leader in promoting environmental studies and international studies and in adopting sustainable operating procedures. Laurie Patton has shared with me her commitment as the College’s new president to build on and extend this admirable record of leadership. Toward this end, she would like to work in partnership with trustees, student groups, and concerned faculty and staff in an effort to identify next steps. This is a sound approach that all in the College community can support. Regarding next steps, this letter highlights one especially significant opportunity. We are at a pivotal moment in the national and international debate over the urgent need for a transition to a clean energy economy. Middlebury has the ability to influence the outcome of this critical debate by taking a public stand with a commitment to join the growing fossil fuel divestment movement. A decision by the College to divest should be viewed primarily as an act of moral and educational leadership at a time when industrial-technological civilization has lost its way and must reinvent itself.

I write this letter as a former Middlebury faculty member who taught at the College for close to three decades, served as dean of the college in the Olin Robison administration, and chaired the College’s Environmental Council during the mid-1990s. My courses included the study of environmental ethics, global ethics, and religion and ecology. I also write as a trustee and former chair of the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), an international grant making foundation that has joined the fossil fuel divestment movement as part of an effort to align its investment policy with its mission and program goals. The Divest Middlebury campaign has set forth a compelling argument, and I write in support of the students who are leading this important initiative.

Scientists working in the field of climate change have turned on the alarm bells. Human development practices, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are altering the conditions on Earth that have made possible the development of civilization over the past ten thousand years. If humanity does not act with all deliberate speed and reduce its global greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, the consensus among scientists is that the ecological, economic and social damage and disruption could be catastrophic and irreversible. The most vulnerable are the hundreds of millions of people living in poverty, but no one’s life will be unaffected. Already the negative effects of climate change are being felt by communities around the world. In addition, human development patterns have caused a tragic decline in the planet’s biodiversity and natural beauty, and ongoing global warming will accelerate this process.

Since action on climate change is about preventing immense harm and promoting the common good, it is first and foremost a fundamental moral issue. With the risk of dangerous consequences growing with every day of delayed action, it is also an extraordinarily urgent moral challenge. In a recent declaration, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican in Rome stated the matter succinctly: “Human-induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its mitigation is a moral and religious imperative.” A growing chorus of religious leaders, including Pope Francis, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and the Dalai Lama, fully support this view. The new Encyclical Letter of Pope Francis on the environment, “Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home,” and the Pope’s addresses before Congress and the United Nations clearly and forcefully highlight the ethical and spiritual dimensions of the environmental crisis and climate change. In response to the initiative of Pope Francis, 333 Rabbis have signed a “Rabbinic Letter on the Climate Crisis.”

This year could be a turning point when the world community forms the necessary global partnership and commits to the collaborative action needed to reduce and eliminate carbon pollution. In December heads of state from the 193 governments that are party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will meet in Paris to finalize a long delayed, legally binding climate change agreement. The goal of the negotiations is to elicit commitments that will cumulatively prevent global warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era. Achieving an effective and equitable agreement in Paris is fundamental to protecting Earth’s ecological integrity, promoting human rights, and fulfilling our responsibilities to future generations. However, again and again governments controlled by short term economic and political interests have failed to address the problem of global warming. Building pressure from civil society, including from leaders in science, religion, education and philanthropy, can make a critical difference.

With the demand for change growing, governments are searching for a way forward. China and the United States, the two largest carbon polluters, have together made meaningful commitments, and many other nations have joined them. However, the commitments made to date fall far short of the reduction in emissions needed. At a special summit meeting on sustainable development this past September, the United Nations issued a path breaking declaration on “Transforming Our World” that adopts seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets, which envision the full integration of the environmental, economic and social dimensions of the sustainable development agenda. The SDGs call for radical change, and if governments are serious about achieving the SDGs, a strong UNFCCC agreement is mandatory. By joining the divestment movement, Middlebury College can help to send that message and register its concern that governments be held accountable for fulfilling their obligations under the agreement and expand their commitments in the future as necessary.

The divestment movement has grown dramatically over the past year. A recent study, which was commissioned by the Wallace Global Fund, has found that 436 institutions have made a commitment to divest from fossil fuel companies, representing $2.6 trillion of investments—a fifty-fold increase. These institutions include the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund and two of the largest pension funds as well as foundations, colleges, universities, NGOs and religious institutions. Recognizing the significance of these developments, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres, has called for more institutions to divest from fossil fuels and invest in clean energy as a way to build momentum going into the Paris climate change meeting. (Clarification regarding the $2.6 trillion of investments is needed, because in some cases the institutions involved are limiting their divestment to coal or to coal and tar sands oil or to some but not all fossil fuels companies.)

College and University trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that their institution has the financial resources to fulfill its educational mission, and they are rightly concerned to maximize returns on endowment investments and minimize risk. In pursuing its commitment to divest from fossil fuels, the RBF [Rockefeller Brothers Fund] has adopted a phased approach, eliminating investments in coal and tar sands first followed by a gradual elimination of all fossil fuels in a fiscally responsible manner. The goal of the RBF is to be completely divested of fossil fuels by the end of 2017. The Fund’s trustees have not found it necessary to alter their long standing commitment to preserve the purchasing power of the endowment. Middlebury should be able to divest from fossil fuels over several years without suffering reduced investment returns. Moreover, divesting could produce higher returns, because the fossil fuel energy sector is facing complex problems and risks. In addition to the precipitous collapse in the price of oil over the past year, which has caused some firms significant loses in market value, the big oil companies face the long term problem of stranded assets. Preventing global warming from exceeding two degrees Celsius will require leaving most of the known coal, oil, and gas reserves in the ground. In short, the transition to a clean energy economy will in all likelihood make fossil fuels a high risk investment. Many financial institutions are following this situation closely, and the Carbon Tracker Initiative is providing investors with the tools to measure economic risk associated with fossil fuels.

It is also important to recognize that renewable energy is rapidly becoming competitive with fossil fuels on cost and that corporations are coming to the realization that cutting their carbon footprint through improved efficiency and a shift to renewables is both possible and profitable. There is a global coalition of corporations that have committed to the long term goal of operating entirely with renewable energy. The New York Times reports that among the companies that have recently joined the coalition are Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Starbucks, and Walmart. The transition away from fossil fuels to renewables is underway in spite of efforts by the big oil companies to prevent it and deny it. The only question is whether the transition will happen fast enough to prevent global warming from pushing the biosphere over tipping points that involve high risk. In a September Op-Ed, the president of Siemens, Joe Kaeser, announced that his global industrial manufacturing company has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2030, and reflecting on the challenge and opportunity before the business community he writes: “We have the technologies, we have the business incentive, and we have the responsibility. Now all we need is the commitment.” A decision by Middlebury’s board to divest will reinforce this message to corporate leaders, many of whom are listening with a new level of concern for the future of the planet, the global economy, and their companies.

Some argue that it is hypocritical for an institution like Middlebury to divest when the college and American society at large continue to be dependent on fossil fuels in so many ways. Is it hypocritical for someone who is addicted to cigarettes but knows that smoking is harmful and cancer causing to divest from all tobacco company stocks? Divesting is a way to help all of us wake up to the real dangers created by our addiction to fossil fuels and make the change to a cleaner, safer, more secure world.

When the RBF board and its investment committee, which includes both trustees and outside experts, began to consider joining the divestment movement, they were working with a highly skilled and successful investment manager. However, given the way its operations were structured, the investment manager concluded that it could not accomplish the goals that the RBF had set for divestment. Consequently the Fund was forced to change investment managers. Making the change has been a demanding process, but it has worked out well and the Fund now has investment managers with the expertise and flexibility that it requires. In short, there are very good alternatives, if Middlebury finds itself contending with the same kind of problem that faced the RBF.

Apart from major educational issues, as a general rule, it is not the responsibility of a college board of trustees to consider taking an official position on the many issues under debate on campus, and only under exceptional circumstances when there are very compelling moral reasons to do so should a board use divestment to support a protest movement. However, climate change is not just one environmental issue among many others or just a political issue. It is one of the defining issues of our time, and the choices made in response to the challenge will profoundly affect the lives of all Middlebury students and the future of life on Earth.

Middlebury College is a highly respected leader internationally in the field of education and a decision by its president and board of trustees to join the expanding fossil fuel divestment movement will be an act of responsible global citizenship consistent with its mission. It will have a significant impact, inspiring other institutions to support the transition to a clean energy economy and contributing to the outcome we all hope for in Paris.

Steven C. Rockefeller
Professor Emeritus of Religion
Middlebury College

Steven C. Rockefeller has had a career as a scholar and teacher, an environmental conservationist, and a philanthropist. His research, writing, and teaching have been focused on the fields of religion, philosophy and ethics. He has had a special interest in the transition to a sustainable future and the development of a relational spirituality and a global ethic for building a just, sustainable and peaceful world community.

Professor Rockefeller is professor emeritus of religion at Middlebury College, Vermont, where he taught from 1970 to 1998 and also served as dean of the college and chair of the religion department. He received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University in 1958, his master of divinity from Union Theological Seminary in 1963, and his doctorate in the philosophy of religion from Columbia University in 1973. He is the author of John Dewey: Religious Faith and Democratic Humanism (Columbia, 1991; Peking University, 2009) and Democratic Equality, Economic Inequality, and the Earth Charter (Earth Charter International, 2015). He is the co-editor of two books of essays, The Christ and the Bodhisattva (SUNY, 1987) and Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment is a Religious Issue (Beacon, 1992). His other publications include over fifty essays that appear in a variety of books and journals.

Professor Rockefeller and Professor John Elder organized and directed at Middlebury College in 1990 the Spirit and Nature Symposium that included the Dalai Lama and was filmed by Bill Moyers for public television. In the mid-1990s, Professor Rockefeller chaired the Middlebury College Environmental Council. Under his leadership, the Council prepared and submitted to the College president “Pathways to a Green Campus” (1995), a comprehensive environmental report on the state of the college with 22 recommendations. Professor Rockefeller served as president of the Demeter Fund, which created the Charlotte Park and Wildlife Refuge in Vermont overlooking Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains. He is the founding president of the Otter Creek Child Care Center in Middlebury, Vermont.

For over thirty years Professor Rockefeller has served as a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, an international foundation with grantmaking programs in democratic practice, sustainable development, and peacebuilding. From 1998 to 2006 he chaired the RBF board of trustees. Among the other boards and commissions on which he has served are the National Commission on the Environment (organized by the World Wildlife Fund), the National Audubon Society, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the Asian Cultural Council, and the Council of the UN mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Over the past two decades, Professor Rockefeller has been actively involved in the Earth Charter Initiative, which in and through extensive worldwide, cross cultural dialogue has endeavored to identify and articulate shared values that provide an ethical foundation for the emerging global community. From 1997 to 2000, he chaired the Earth Charter international drafting committee for the Earth Charter Commission. A final version of the Earth Charter—a declaration of global interdependence and universal responsibility with fundamental principles for creating a just, sustainable and peaceful world—was launched by the Earth Charter Commission at the Peace Palace in The Hague in 2000. From 2000 to 2010, Professor Rockefeller served as co-chair of the Earth Charter International (ECI) Council. The ECI Secretariat is based at the University for Peace in Costa Rica and has affiliates in 73 different countries. The Earth Charter has been translated into over 40 languages and endorsed by over 5,000 organizations globally, including UNESCO and the World Conservation Congress of IUCN.

Professor Rockefeller lives with his wife, Professor Barbara Bellows Rockefeller, in Pound Ridge, New York.

Asian Cultural Council
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/5/20

Professor Rockefeller and Professor John Elder organized and directed at Middlebury College in 1990 the Spirit and Nature Symposium that included the Dalai Lama and was filmed by Bill Moyers for public television. In the mid-1990s, Professor Rockefeller chaired the Middlebury College Environmental Council. Under his leadership, the Council prepared and submitted to the College president “Pathways to a Green Campus” (1995), a comprehensive environmental report on the state of the college with 22 recommendations. Professor Rockefeller served as president of the Demeter Fund, which created the Charlotte Park and Wildlife Refuge in Vermont overlooking Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains. He is the founding president of the Otter Creek Child Care Center in Middlebury, Vermont.

For over thirty years Professor Rockefeller has served as a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, an international foundation with grantmaking programs in democratic practice, sustainable development, and peacebuilding. From 1998 to 2006 he chaired the RBF board of trustees. Among the other boards and commissions on which he has served are the National Commission on the Environment (organized by the World Wildlife Fund), the National Audubon Society, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the Asian Cultural Council, and the Council of the UN mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Over the past two decades, Professor Rockefeller has been actively involved in the Earth Charter Initiative, which in and through extensive worldwide, cross cultural dialogue has endeavored to identify and articulate shared values that provide an ethical foundation for the emerging global community. From 1997 to 2000, he chaired the Earth Charter international drafting committee for the Earth Charter Commission. A final version of the Earth Charter—a declaration of global interdependence and universal responsibility with fundamental principles for creating a just, sustainable and peaceful world—was launched by the Earth Charter Commission at the Peace Palace in The Hague in 2000. From 2000 to 2010, Professor Rockefeller served as co-chair of the Earth Charter International (ECI) Council. The ECI Secretariat is based at the University for Peace in Costa Rica and has affiliates in 73 different countries. The Earth Charter has been translated into over 40 languages and endorsed by over 5,000 organizations globally, including UNESCO and the World Conservation Congress of IUCN.

-- Open Letter to the [Middlebury] President and Trustees, by Steven C. Rockefeller

Asian Cultural Council

Geographic purview of the ACC
Abbreviation: ACC
Formation: 1980 (1963 - 1979 as Asian Cultural Program of the JDR 3rd Fund)
Type: 501(c)(3) Non-profit
Purpose: Cultural exchange
Headquarters: New York City
Location: New York City; Hong Kong; Manila; Taipei; Tokyo
Region served: USA and Asia
Official language: English
Chairman: Wendy O'Neill
Website http://www.asianculturalcouncil.org

The Asian Cultural Council (ACC) (traditional Chinese: 亞洲文化協會; simplified Chinese: 亚洲文化协会; pinyin: Yàzhōu Wénhuà Xiéhuì; Cantonese Yale: Ajāu Màhnfa Hipwúi; Japanese: アジアン・カルチュラル・カウンシル; Korean: 아시아 문화 협회) is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing international cultural exchange between Asia and the U.S. and between the countries of Asia through the arts. [1] Founded by John D. Rockefeller 3rd in 1963, ACC has invested over $100 million in grants to artists and arts professionals representing 16 fields and 26 countries through over 6,000 exchanges.[2]Annually, ACC supports $1.4 million in grants for individuals and organizations.[3]

ACC awards fellowship grants to artists and scholars and project grants for organizations in three categories of cross-cultural exchange: Asia-to-U.S., U.S.-to-Asia, and intra-Asia. The programming of each grant is customized to the goals of the grant recipient.

ACC is both a grantmaking and grantseeking organization. It is supported by funding from individuals, foundations, and corporations including The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Beijing Contemporary Art Foundation, Ford Foundation, the Henry Luce Foundation, Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, Newman’s Own Foundation and The Starr Foundation.

Billy Hitchcock [Mellon] wasn't the only figure in the Mellon clan who rubbed shoulders with the espionage community. A number of Mellons served in the OSS, notably David Bruce, the OSS station chief in London (whose father-in-law, Andrew Mellon, was treasury secretary during the Depression). After the war certain influential members of the Mellon family maintained close ties with the CIA. Mellon family foundations have been used repeatedly as conduits for Agency funds. Furthermore, Richard Helms was a frequent weekend guest of the Mellon patriarchs in Pittsburgh during his tenure as CIA director (1966-1973).

-- Acid Dreams, The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, The Sixties, And Beyond, by Martin A. Lee & Bruce Shlain

Background: Ford Foundation and the CIA

By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington's post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes: "At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects" (Ibid, p.139). This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a "mutual search" for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954 (Ibid, p. 139). Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the "vanguard of Cold War thinking".

One of the FF first Cold War projects was the establishment of a publishing house, Inter-cultural Publications, and the publication of a magazine Perspectives in Europe in four languages. The FF purpose according to Bissell was not "so much to defeat the leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat (sic) as to lure them away from their positions" (Ibid, p. 140). The board of directors of the publishing house was completely dominated by cultural Cold Warriors....

Another journal Der Monat funded by the Confidential Fund of the U.S. military and run by Melvin Lasky was taken over by the FF, to provide it with the appearance of independence (Ibid, p. 140).

In 1954 the new president of the FF was John McCloy. He epitomized imperial power. Prior to becoming president of the FF he had been Assistant Secretary of War, president of the World Bank, High Commissioner of occupied Germany, chairman of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank, Wall Street attorney for the big seven oil companies and director of numerous corporations. As High Commissioner in Germany, McCloy had provided cover for scores of CIA agents (Ibid, p. 141).

McCloy integrated the FF with CIA operations. He created an administrative unit within the FF specifically to deal with the CIA. McCloy headed a three person consultation committee with the CIA to facilitate the use of the FF for a cover and conduit of funds. With these structural linkages the FF was one of those organizations the CIA was able to mobilize for political warfare against the anti-imperialist and pro-communist left. Numerous CIA "fronts" received major FF grants. Numerous supposedly "independent" CIA sponsored cultural organizations, human rights groups, artists and intellectuals received CIA/FF grants. One of the biggest donations of the FF was to the CIA-organized Congress for Cultural Freedom which received $7 million by the early 1960s. Numerous CIA operatives secured employment in the FF and continued close collaboration with the Agency (Ibid, p. 143).

-- The Ford Foundation and the CIA, by James Petras

Once ambitious to become Secretary of State in a Republican administration, Henry R. Luce penned a famous article in Life magazine in 1941, called "The American Century", which defined the role of American foreign policy for the remainder of the 20th century (and perhaps beyond).

An ardent anti-Soviet, he once demanded John Kennedy invade Cuba, later to remark to his editors that if he did not, his corporation would act like Hearst during the Spanish–American War. The publisher would advance his concepts of US dominance of the "American Century" through his periodicals with the ideals shared and guided by members of his social circle, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State and his brother, director of the CIA, Allen Dulles.

-- Henry Luce, by Wikipedia

Mandarin Oriental, Hong Kong is a five-star hotel located on Connaught Road in Central, Hong Kong, owned and managed by Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group....

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group (MOHG; Chinese: 文華東方酒店), a member of the Jardine Matheson Group, is an international hotel investment and management group with luxury hotels, resorts and residences in Asia, Europe and the Americas.

-- Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, by Wikipedia

Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited (also known as Jardines) is a British conglomerate incorporated in Bermuda and headquartered in Hong Kong, with its primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and secondary listings on the Singapore Exchange and Bermuda Stock Exchange. The majority of its business interests are in Asia, and its subsidiaries include Jardine Pacific, Jardine Motors, Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Hongkong Land, Jardine Strategic Holdings, Dairy Farm, Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, Jardine Cycle & Carriage and Astra International. It sponsors the Jardine Scholarship.

Jardines was one of the original Hong Kong trading houses or Hongs that date back to Imperial China and, as of December 2010, 41 percent of the company's profits were still earned in China. The company is controlled by the Keswick family, who are descendants of co-founder William Jardine's older sister, Jean Johnstone.

-- Jardine Matheson, by Wikipedia

In the 1920s, the U.S. threw its weight behind Chiang Kai-shek, whose Kuomintang Party was fighting the Communists and several other warlords for control of China. The U.S. was competing with the other colonial nations for control of China, which had a cheap labor force and represented billions in profits for U.S. corporations and investors. The problem was that the Kuomintang supported itself through the opium trade. It's well documented in the diplomatic cables between the U.S. government and its representatives in China. Historians Kinder and Walker said the Commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, "clearly knew about the ties between Chiang and opium dealers."

Anslinger knew that Shanghai was "the prime producer and exporter to the illicit world drug markets," through a syndicate controlled by Du Yue-sheng, a crime lord who facilitated Chiang's bloody ascent to power in 1927. As early as 1932, Anslinger knew that Chiang's finance minister was Du's protector. He'd had evidence since 1929 that American t'ongs were receiving Kuomintang narcotics and distributing it to the Mafia. Middlemen worked with opium merchants, gangsters like Du, Japanese occupation forces in Manchuria, and Dr. Lansing Ling, "who supplied narcotics to Chinese officials traveling abroad." In 1938 Chiang Kai-shek appointed Dr. Ling head of his Narcotic Control Department.

In October 1934, the Treasury attache in Shanghai "submitted reports implicating Chiang Kai-shek in the heroin trade to North America." In 1935 the attache reported that the Superintendent of Maritime Customs in Shanghai was "acting as agent for Chiang Kaishek in arranging for the preparation and shipment of the stuff to the United States."

These reports reached Anslinger's desk, so he knew which KMT officials and trade missions were delivering dope to American t'ongs and which American Mafia drug rings were buying it. He knew the t'ongs were kicking back a percentage of the profits to finance Chiang's regime.

After Japanese forces seized Shanghai in August 1937, Anslinger was even less willing to deal honestly with the situation. By then Du was sitting on Shanghai's Municipal Board with William J. Keswick, a director of the Jardine Matheson Shipping Company. Through Keswick, Du found sanctuary in Hong Kong, where he was welcomed by a cabal of free-trading British colonialists whose shipping and banking companies earned huge revenues by allowing Du to push his drugs on the hapless Chinese. The revenues were truly immense: according to Colonel Joseph Stilwell, the U.S. military attache in China, in 1935 there were "eight million Chinese heroin and morphine addicts and another 72 million Chinese opium addicts."

Anslinger tried to minimize the problem by lying and saying that Americans were not affected. But the final decisions were made by his bosses in Washington, and from their national security perspective, the profits enabled the Kuomintang to purchase $31 million worth of fighter planes from arms dealer William Pawley to fight the Communists, and that trumped any moral dilemmas about trading with the Japanese or getting Americans addicted.

It's all documented. Check the sources I cite in my books. Plus, U.S. Congressmen and Senators in the China Lobby were profiting from the guns for drugs business too. They got kickbacks in the form of campaign funds and in exchange, they looked away as long as Anslinger told them the dope stayed overseas. After 1949, the China Lobby manipulated public hearings and Anslinger cooked the books to make sure that the Peoples Republic was blamed for all narcotics coming out of the Far East. Everyone made money and after 1949 the operation was run out of Taiwan, with CIA assistance.

-- The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, by Douglas Valentine

The Keswick family (pronounced with a silent "w", "Kezzick") are a business dynasty of Scottish origin associated with the Far East since 1855 and in particular the conglomerate Jardine Matheson.

As tai-pans of Jardine Matheson & Company, the Keswick family have at some time been closely associated with the ownership or management of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company Ltd., the Canton Insurance Office Ltd, (now the HSBC Insurance Co), The Hongkong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company Limited, Star Ferry, Hong Kong Tramway, the Hong Kong Land Investment and Agency Co Ltd, and the Hongkong and Whampoa Dock Co Ltd.

The Hon. William Keswick (1834–1912)

The founder of the dynasty, he was born in 1834, in Dumfriesshire in the Scottish Lowlands. His grandmother, Jean Jardine Johnstone was an older sister of Dr. William Jardine, the founder of Jardine Matheson & Company. His father Thomas Keswick had married Margaret Johnstone, Jardine's niece and daughter of Jean, and entered the Jardine business. The company operated as opium traders and had a major influence in the First and Second Opium Wars although the company stopped this trading in 1870 to pursue a broad range of other trading interests including shipping, railways, textiles and property development.

William arrived in China and Hong Kong in 1855, the first of five generations of the Keswick family to be associated with Jardines. He established a Jardine Matheson office in Yokohama, Japan in 1859. He returned to Hong Kong to become a partner of the firm in 1862. He became managing partner (Taipan) from 1874 to 1886. He left Hong Kong in 1886 to work with Matheson & Co. in London as a senior director responsible only to Sir Robert Jardine (1825–1905), a son of David Jardine, William Jardine's older brother and the head of Mathesons in London.

-- Keswick family, by Wikipedia

Originally called The Mandarin, the hotel was built on the former site of the colonial Queen's Building on the waterfront in Central Hong Kong. From the onset, the concept was to create a hotel firmly rooted in Eastern culture, providing gracious service to a standard generally experienced only in the Asia–Pacific region. The original cost of construction totalled HKD 42 million, while the interior design amounted to even 50% more at HKD 66 million, sparing no luxury or detail. John Howarth of Leigh & Orange architectural firm was hired to design the building while the interior was entrusted to Don Ashton, a Hollywood Art Director for such films as The Bridge on the River Kwai, Indiscreet, and Billy Budd. The Mandarin officially opened for business in October 1963, and at 26 storeys, it was the tallest building in Hong Kong. In addition to its record-setting height, the hotel was the first in Hong Kong to have direct dial phones and the first in Asia to include a bath in every guestroom. The hotel quickly drew recognition for its service and elegance, and back in 1967 was listed by Fortune magazine as one of eleven great hotels in the world.

-- Mandarin Oriental, Hong Kong, by Wikipedia

Mandarin Oriental, Bangkok is a five-star hotel in Bangkok owned in part and managed by Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group. Located on the banks of the Chao Phraya River, the original structure was the first hotel built in Thailand when it opened as The Oriental in 1876. Today, the hotel is one of two flagship properties of Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group.

Germaine Krull

At the end of the war a six-person partnership each contributed US$250 to buy the hotel, badly run down from its wartime service. The partnership consisted of Germaine Krull (1897–1985), Prince Bhanu, General Chai Prateepasen, Pote Sarasin (prominent businessman and lawyer) and John Webster and Jim Thompson, two Americans who had served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and who had stayed on in Thailand. Krull took the position of manager in 1947, despite no prior experience in the hotel field. Born in Germany, she had been best known as a photographer during the 1920s before service in the Pacific as a war correspondent for Agence France Presse. The hotel's restoration and restocking offered Thompson an opportunity to put to use his architectural and artistic abilities.

The hotel reopened for business on 12 June 1947. Krull turned out to be a natural hotelier and during her reign restored the hotel to its position as the premier hotel in Thailand. Thompson soon left the partnership over a plan to build a new wing, though he stayed on in residence at the hotel for some time. To compete with popular clubs and a new local bar called Chez Eve, Krull established the Bamboo Bar, which soon became one of the leading bars in Bangkok.[6]

In 1958 the ten-storey Garden Wing was built. It featured the city’s first elevator and was home to the Le Normandie Restaurant.[2] In 1967, fearful that Thailand would fall to the communists, Krull sold her share to Italthai which at the time was well on its way to becoming one of the country’s most significant mercantile groups eventually totally some 60 companies involved in almost all aspects of the Thai economy....

Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and Mandarin Oriental, Bangkok

-- Mandarin Oriental, Bangkok, Wikipedia

Cornelius Vander Starr also known as Neil Starr or C. V. Starr (October 15, 1892 – December 20, 1968) was an American businessman and operative of the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the CIA, who was best known for founding, in 1919, C.V. Starr & Co. (later known as Starr Companies) in Shanghai, China. Starr's "hand-picked successor" was Maurice Greenberg, who took a lead role in forming AIG as a Starr subsidiary. AIG grew from an initial market value of $300 million to $180 billion, becoming the largest insurance company in the world.

-- Cornelius Vander Starr, by Wikipedia

ACC is headquartered in New York City with regional offices and affiliate foundations in Hong Kong (ACC Hong Kong Foundation est. 2015), Manila (ACC Philippines Foundation est. 2000), Taipei (ACC Taiwan Foundation est. 1995) and Tokyo (ACC Japan Foundation est. 2018).

History

The Asian Cultural Program of the JDR 3rd Fund (1963-1980)

The JDR 3rd Fund was incorporated in 1963 as a private non-profit by John D. Rockefeller 3rd "to stimulate, encourage, promote, and support activities important to human welfare." [4] The Asian Cultural Program of the JDR 3rd Fund—precursor to the Asian Cultural Council—was established to promote cultural exchange in the arts between the United States and Asia. ACC’s founding director, Porter McCray, was the former director of circulating exhibitions at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.[5]Through the 1960s, the Asian Cultural Program of the JDR 3rd Fund made 80 to 100 grants annually to artists, scholars, students and institutions. Richard S. Lanier succeeded Porter McCray as director in 1975. [6]

Archives concerning the JDR 3rd Fund, the Asian Cultural Program, and the Asian Cultural Council can be found at the Rockefeller Archive Center. [7]

The Asian Cultural Council (1980-)

Following the death of John D. Rockefeller 3rd in 1978, the Asian Cultural Program became the Asian Cultural Council (ACC) and was established as a publicly supported operating foundation. Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller, wife of John D. Rockefeller 3rd, became ACC’s first Chairman and Elizabeth J. McCormack, Director of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Office, became Vice President. Subsequent directors were Ralph Samuelson (1991-2008) and Jennifer P. Goodale (2008-2013), and ACC's current Executive Director is Miho Walsh.

Leadership

• Chairman: Wendy O’Neill
• Executive Director: Miho Walsh[8]
• ACC Hong Kong Foundation Limited Chairman: Hans Michael Jebsen
• ACC Taiwan Foundation Chairman: Douglas Tong Hsu
• ACC Japan Foundation Chairman: Kazuko Aso
• ACC Philippines Foundation Inc. Chairman: Ernest L. Escaler

Programs


ACC Grantee, Japanese contemporary artist Takashi Murakami at Versailles Sept. 2010

ACC provides grants for individual fellowships, projects and organizations, graduate studies, and travel. They support activities that involve cultural immersion; cross-cultural engagement; and relationship building, collaboration, or exchange of best practices among arts professionals.[9]In addition to funding, it is common for grantees to receive mentoring and personal introductions, and access to an international network of alumni.

ACC provides grants from Asia to the U.S., U.S. to Asia, and intra-Asia. Regions include: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and United States of America.

Fields include: Archaeology, Architecture, Art History, Arts Administration, Arts Criticism, Conservation, Crafts, Curation, Dance, Ethnomusicology, Film/Video/Photography, Literature, Museum Studies, Music, Theater and Visual Art.

In addition to grants, ACC organizes public programs to facilitate understanding and dialogue around cultural exchange. This includes forums, convenings, and officially established programs such as the East-West Dialogues and Cultural Conversations. In 2000 and 2003, ACC organized Forums on Arts and Culture in the Mekong Region with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 2017, the ACC Forum: Making the Case for Cultural Exchange through funding by the Henry Luce Foundation.

The East-West Dialogues is an annual lecture series engaging leaders from the arts and cultural fields in Asia and the West. It was established in 2013 through an endowment gift from Tsuneko and Shoji Sadao. Speakers have included author Pico Iyer, writer and editor Ian Buruma, American theater director Peter Sellars, Japanese architect Fumihiko Maki, and president of Japan Society of Boston Peter Grilli.

Cultural Conversations is an in-house lecture series that features ACC alumni and their work. Conversations have been led by alumni such as wooden boat builder Douglas Brooks (ACC multiple grants 2008-2017), Shiro Nakane and the Japan Society (ACC multiple grants 1964-2015), artist Oscar Oiwa (ACC 2001), shamisen performer Hidejiro Honjo (ACC 2016), Taiwanese choreographer Cheng Tsung-Lung (ACC 2011), [10], composer Matt Welch (ACC 2016), and scholar Urmila Mohan (ACC 2018).[11]

Program Timeline

Below is a list of ACC programs. Those established through an initial donation, grant, or endowment have funding individuals or organizations noted in parentheses.

1983: ACC Japan-United States Program (Seiji Tsutsumi and the Seibu Saison group)

• Ford Foundation Fellowship Program for individuals documenting and preserving the traditional arts of Asia (Ford Foundation)
• Starr Foundation Visual Arts Program for artists and art specialists from Asia to travel to the United States (Starr Foundation)

1984: Samuel H. Kress Foundation Fellowships for American art history students conducting dissertation research in Asia (Samuel H. Kress Foundation)

1985: The Humanities Fellowship Program for American scholars and students carrying out research in Asia (National Endowment for the Humanities)

1986: The Hong Kong Arts Program—now called the China, Hong Kong and Macau Program—for artists, students and scholars from Hong Kong to research, study and create work in the United States (Asian Oceanic Group, British American Tobacco Company (Hong Kong) Limited and the Lee Hysan Foundation)

1987: The Asian Art and Religion Fellowship Program for American scholars, specialists and artists to undertake research and projects in Asia involving the intersection or religion and the arts (Laurance S. Rockefeller Jr.)

1993: The Indonesian Museum Development Program—organized in collaboration with the Nusantara Jaya Foundation and the Indonesia Directorate of Museums—for Indonesian museum professionals to intern in the United States and to help with museum workshop programs in Indonesia (Ford Foundation)

1994:

• The Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller Fellowship Fund Committee was organized in Japan to establish an endowment honoring the memory of the late Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller
• ACC Residency Program in Asia for American scholars, artists, and professionals to research, teach, and partake in residencies in Asia (Freeman Foundation)

1995:

• ACC’s Taiwan Fellowship Program for the exchange of artists, scholars, and specialists between Taiwan and the United States, as well as Taiwan and other countries in Asia (Sino-American Foundation, now the ACC Taiwan Foundation)
• China On-Site Seminar Program for the exchange of American and Chinese art history students (Henry Luce Foundation)
• Ock Rang Cultural Foundation Fellowship Program for cultural exchange between Korea and the U.S. and Korea and other countries in Asia

1997:

• The Cambodian Artists Mentorship Program to support performing arts training programs at the Royal University of Fine Arts in Phnom Penh (Rockefeller Foundation)
• The Indonesia Cultural Management Assistance Project to support the management of cultural institutions in Indonesia (Ford Foundation)

2000:

• The Philippines Fellowship Program for the exchange of artists, scholars, and specialists between the Philippines and the U.S., and the Philippines and other countries in Asia (ACC Philippines Foundation)

2001: The Mekong Region Fellowship Program to assist individual artists, scholars, and specialists from Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, and China’s Yunnan Province to undertake research, training and creative projects in the United States or Asia (Rockefeller Foundation)

2005: The Mandarin Oriental Fellowship to support the preservation of indigenous arts, cultures, and traditions of Asia (Mandarin Oriental Foundation)

2007: American Artists and Museum Professionals Program (Henry Luce Foundation)

2008: The Starr Foundation Performing Arts Program for individuals and institutions working in the contemporary performing arts in Asia to travel to the United States (The Starr Foundation)

2011: Arts in Action Program to support arts communities in need of assistance for rebuilding after natural disasters (Mikimoto)

2012: The Elizabeth J. McCormack Fund was established as an endowment to support the general operations of ACC

2019: The ACC/BCAF Contemporary Arts Fellowship Program for exchange of artists from China and the United States (Beijing Contemporary Art Foundation)

John D. Rockefeller 3rd Award

The John D. Rockefeller 3rd Award is given to individuals from Asia or the U.S. who have made significant contributions to the international understanding, practice, or study of the visual or performing arts of Asia.[12]

Past awardees

• 1970: Richard Bartholomew, New Delhi, India
• 1986: John M. Rosenfield, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Professor of Fine Arts, Harvard University
• 1987: José Maceda, Chairman, Department of Music, Research College of Music, University of the Philippines
• 1988: James R. Brandon, Professor, Department of Drama and Theatre, University of Hawai’i at Manoa
• 1990: Sherman E. Lee, Former Director, The Cleveland Museum of Art
• 1991: Chou Wen-chung, Director, Center for U.S.-China Arts Exchange, Columbia University
• 1992: Kapila Vatsyayan, Director, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi
• 1993: Donald Richie, Film critic and writer, Tokyo
• 1995: Setsu Asakura, Stage designer, Tokyo
• 1996: Ma Chengyuan, Director, Shanghai Museum
• 1997: Beate Gordon, Arts consultant and writer, New York
• 1998: Nguyen Van Huy, Director, Vietnam Museum of Ethnology, Hanoi
• 1999: Proeung Chhieng, Dean, Faculty of Choreographic Arts, Royal University of Fine Arts, Phnom Penh
• 2000: Ellen Stewart, Founder and Artistic Director, La MaMa Experimental Theater Club, New York
• 2002: Yang Meiqi, Founder, Guangdong Modern Dance Company, Guangzhou
• 2003: Judy Mitoma, Director, Center for Intercultural Performance, University of California, Los Angeles
• 2005: Mella Jaarsma, Nindityo Adipurnomo, Founders, Cemeti Art House, Yogyakarta
• 2006: Lin Hwai-min, Artistic Director, Cloud Gate Dance Theater, Taipei
• 2007: Nestor O. Jardin, President, Cultural Center of the Philippines, Manila
• 2008: Ratan Thiyam, Founder and Director, Chorus Repertory Theatre, Manipur
• 2010: Samina Quraeshi, Writer, Artist, Designer, Shepard/Quraeshi Associates, Inc., Boston
• 2013: Amna Kusumo, Director, Yayasan Kelola, Jakarta
• 2013: Pichet Klunchun, Choreographer and Dancer, Phichet Klunchun Dance Company, Thailand
• 2013: Chinary Ung, Composer, Composers Institute in Asia; University of California, San Diego
• 2015: Duk-Hyung Yoo, President, Seoul Institute of the Arts, Seoul
• 2017: Shen Wei, Founder, Shen Wei Dance Arts
• 2019: Kengo Kuma, Architect, Kengo Kuma & Associates

Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller Award

The Asian Cultural Council established the Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller Award in 2009 in honor of its first Chairman, Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller, wife of John D. Rockefeller 3rd. The Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller Award honors the generosity of the enlightened individuals who believe ACC’s mission of furthering international dialogue, understanding, and respect between Asia and the U.S. through the transformative experience of cultural exchange.

Past awardees

• 2009: Dr. Deanna Ruth Tak Yung Rudgard, OBE, Non-executive Director, Hysan Development Company Limited
• 2012: Seiji Tsutsumi, President, The Saison Foundation
• 2018: Hans Michael Jebsen, Chairman, Jebsen & Co. Ltd., ACCHK Chairman
• 2019: Elizabeth J. McCormack, Chairman Emeritus, Asian Cultural Council

Artistic Advisory Council


ACC Grantee, American film and theater director and writer Julie Taymor

• Yael Buencamino (Philippines)
• Cai Guo-Qiang, Visual Art (ACC 1995 & 2006, China/U.S.)
• Tiffany Chung, Visual Art (ACC 2015, U.S./Vietnam)
• Patrick Flores, Museum Studies (ACC 2009, Philippines)
• Oscar Ho, Visual Art (ACC 1992, Hong Kong)
• David Henry Hwang, Theater (ACC 2012, U.S.)
• Jin Xing, Dance (ACC 1988, China)
• Kengo Kuma, Architecture (ACC 1985, Japan)
• Dinh Q. Le, Visual Art (ACC 2004, Vietnam/U.S.)
• Barbara London, Film, Video, and Photography (ACC 1995 & 1997, U.S.)
• Fumihiko Maki, Architecture (ACC 1976, Japan)
• Meredith Monk, Theater (ACC 1997 & 2000, U.S.)
• Kohei Nawa, Visual Art (ACC 2004, Japan)
• Jan Leeroy New, Visual Art (ACC 2015, Philippines)
• Viet Thanh Nguyen, Film, Video, and Photography (ACC 2010, U.S.)
• Ong Keng Sen, Theater (ACC 1993, Singapore)
• Mallika Sarabhai, Arts General (ACC 2002, India)
• Sheu Fang-Yi, Dance (ACC 2006, Taiwan)
• Louisa So Yuk Wa, Theater (ACC 2008, Hong Kong)
• Julie Taymor, Theater (ACC 1980, U.S.)
• Tran Luong, Visual Art (ACC 1998 & 2008, Vietnam)
• Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Film, Video, and Photography (ACC 2004, Thailand)
• Robert Wilson, Theater (ACC 1981 & 2004, U.S.)

References

1. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/13-3018822
2. http://artasiapacific.com/News/AsianCul ... Recipients
3. https://www.asianculturalcouncil.org/ou ... tions-news
4. https://rockarch.org/collections/rockor ... s.php#jdr3
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/nyre ... hical-note
6. https://www.asianculturalcouncil.org/ab ... ur-history
7. https://rockarch.org/collections/rockor ... s.php#jdr3
8. http://www.impactmania.com/article/asia ... -exchange/
9. https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news ... nge-grants https://iscp-nyc.org/sponsor/acc-asian-cultural-council
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/arts ... Position=1
11. https://www.asianculturalcouncil.org/bl ... mila-mohan
12. https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014 ... Position=1

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/5/20

Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Motto: Philanthropy for an Interdependent World
Formation: 28 December 1940; 79 years ago
Founder: John, Nelson, Winthrop, Laurance, and David Rockefeller
Headquarters: New York, New York
Products: Grant-making
Key people: Stephen B. Heintz
Endowment: $870 million (2017)[1]
Website www.rbf.org

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) is a philanthropic foundation created and run by members of the Rockefeller family. It was founded in New York City in 1940 as the primary philanthropic vehicle for the five third-generation Rockefeller brothers: John D. Rockefeller III, Nelson, Laurance, Winthrop and David. It is distinct from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefellers are an industrial, political, and banking family that made one of the world's largest fortunes in the oil business during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Fund's stated mission is to "advance social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world."[2] The current president of RBF is Stephen Heintz, who was appointed to the post in 2000.[3] Valerie Rockefeller serves as RBF's chairwoman. She succeeded Richard Rockefeller, the fifth child of David Rockefeller, who served as RBF's chairman until 2013.[4]

History

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund was established in 1940 by the five sons of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. The five Rockefeller brothers served as the Fund's first five trustees. In 1951, the Fund grew substantially when it received a $58 million endowment from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.[5]

As the RBF's founding generation passed on, new family members joined the board, moving the Fund's giving further to the political left.[6] In 1999, the Fund merged with the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation.[5]

In November 2006, David Rockefeller pledged $225 million to the Fund that would create the David Rockefeller Global Development Fund after his death.[7]

In September 2014, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced that it planned to divest its assets from fossil fuels.[8] On disinvesting from fossil fuels, the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, said: "We see this as both a moral imperative and an economic opportunity" (30 September 2014).[9]

The Rockefeller Family Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund are independent, distinct institutions.[10]

Special Studies Project

Main article: Special Studies Project

From 1956 to 1960, the Fund financed a study conceived by its then president, Nelson Rockefeller, to analyze the challenges facing the United States. Henry Kissinger was recruited to direct the project. Seven panels were constituted that looked at issues including military strategy, foreign policy, international economic strategy, governmental reorganization, and the nuclear arms race.[11]

The military subpanel's report was rush-released about two months after the USSR launched Sputnik in October 1957.[12] Rockefeller urged the Republican Party to adopt the finding of the Special Studies Project as its platform. The findings of the project formed the framework of Nelson Rockefeller's 1960 presidential election platform.[13] The project was published in its entirety in 1961 as Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports. The archival study papers are stored in the Rockefeller Archive Center at the family estate.[14]

Presidents

• Nelson Rockefeller (1956-1958)
• Laurance Rockefeller (1958-1968)
• Dana S. Creel (1968-1975)
• William M. Dietel (1975-1987)
• Colin G. Campbell (1987-2000)
• Stephen B. Heintz (2001–present)

Further reading

• Harr, John Ensor, and Peter J. Johnson, The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations of America's Greatest Family, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988.
• Nielsen, Waldemar, The Big Foundations, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
• Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York: Random House, 2002.

References

1. "Endowment Summary". Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Retrieved 11 July 2017.
2. "About The Fund". Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
3. Nauffts, Mitch (5 November 2000). "Stephen B. Heintz: A Conversation With the President of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund". Philanthropy News Digest. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
4. "New Leadership at the Fund". RBF.org. 29 July 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
5. Jump up to:a b Ciger, Joseph Charles. Philanthropists and Foundation Globalization. Transaction Publishers. p. 101. ISBN 9781412806732.
6. Horowitz, David; Laskin, Jacob. The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money-Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future. Crown Publishing Group. p. 45. ISBN 9780307716477.
7. "David Rockefeller Pledges $225 Million to Family Fund (Update1)". bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2 October 2015.
8. Iyengar, Rishi (22 September 2014). "The Rockefellers Are Pulling Their Charity Fund Out of Fossil Fuels". Time. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
9. Cited in Tim Flannery, Atmosphere of Hope. Solutions to the Climate Crisis, Penguin Books, 2015, pages 117 (ISBN 9780141981048). Opening quote for the chapter ten entitles "Divestment and the carbon bubble".
10. Kaiser, David; Wasserman, Lee (8 December 2016). "The Rockefeller Family Fund vs. Exxon". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 27 February 2018. Although the boards of the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund are still led by members of the family, they are independent, distinct institutions. In these articles we are speaking only for the Rockefeller Family Fund
11. Ferguson, Niall (2015). Kissinger 1923-1968: The Idealist. Penguin. ISBN 9780698195691.
12. Rushed release of military subpanel's report - see Cary Reich, The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller: Worlds to Conquer, 1908-1958, New York: Doubleday, 1996. (pp.650-667)
13. Andrew III, John (Summer 1998). "Cracks in the Consensus: The Rockefeller Brothers Fund Special Studies Project and Eisenhower's America". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 28: 535–552. JSTOR 27551900.
14. Rockefeller Archive Center

External links

• Official website

Aspen Institute
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/5/20


The Aspen Institute
Formation: 1949; 71 years ago
Type: Research institute, think tank
Headquarters: 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 700
Location: Washington, D.C.
President & CEO: Daniel R. Porterfield
Revenue (2017): $141.378 million[1]
Expenses (2017): $134.993 million[1]
Website: AspenInstitute.org

The Aspen Institute is an international nonprofit think tank founded in 1949 as the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.[2] The organization is a nonpartisan forum for values-based leadership and the exchange of ideas. The Institute and its international partners promote the pursuit of common ground and deeper understanding in a nonpartisan and nonideological setting through regular seminars, policy programs, conferences, and leadership development initiatives. The institute is headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States, and has campuses in Aspen, Colorado (its original home), and near the shores of the Chesapeake Bay at the Wye River in Maryland. It has partner Aspen Institutes in Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Paris, Lyon, Tokyo, New Delhi, Prague, Bucharest, Mexico City, and Kiev, as well as leadership initiatives in the United States and on the African continent, India, and Central America.

The Aspen Institute is largely funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Gates Foundation, the Lumina Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, by seminar fees, and by individual donations. Its board of trustees includes leaders from politics, government, business and academia who also contribute to its support.

History

The Institute was largely the creation of Walter Paepcke, a Chicago businessman who had become inspired by the Great Books program of Mortimer Adler at the University of Chicago.[3] In 1945, Paepcke visited Bauhaus artist and architect Herbert Bayer, AIA, who had designed and built a Bauhaus-inspired minimalist home outside the decaying former mining town of Aspen, in the Roaring Fork Valley. Paepcke and Bayer envisioned a place where artists, leaders, thinkers, and musicians could gather. Shortly thereafter, while passing through Aspen on a hunting expedition, oil industry maverick Robert O. Anderson (soon to be founder and CEO of Atlantic Richfield) met with Bayer and shared in Paepcke's and Bayer's vision. In 1949, Paepcke organized a 20-day international celebration for the 200th birthday of German poet and philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The celebration attracted over 2,000 attendees, including Albert Schweitzer, José Ortega y Gasset, Thornton Wilder, and Arthur Rubinstein.[4]


Doerr-Hosier Center at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colorado

In 1949, Paepcke founded the Aspen Institute; and later the Aspen Music Festival and eventually (with Bayer and Anderson) the International Design Conference at Aspen (IDCA).[5] Paepcke sought a forum "where the human spirit can flourish", especially amid the whirlwind and chaos of modernization. He hoped that the Institute could help business leaders recapture what he called "eternal verities": the values that guided them intellectually, ethically, and spiritually as they led their companies. Inspired by philosopher Mortimer Adler's Great Books seminar at the University of Chicago, Paepcke worked with Anderson to create the Aspen Institute Executive Seminar.[6] In 1951, the Institute sponsored a national photography conference attended by Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Ben Shahn, Berenice Abbott, and other notables. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Institute added organizations, programs, and conferences, including the Aspen Center for Physics, the Aspen Strategy Group, Communications and Society Program and other programs that concentrated on education, communications, justice, Asian thought, science, technology, the environment, and international affairs.

In 1979, through a donation by Corning Glass industrialist and philanthropist Arthur A. Houghton Jr. the Institute acquired a 1,000-acre (4 km²) campus on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, known today as the Wye River Conference Centers.[7]

In 1996, the first Socrates Program seminar was hosted.

In 2005, it held the first Aspen Ideas Festival, featuring leading minds from around the world sharing and speaking on global issues. The Institute, along with The Atlantic, hosts the festival annually. It has trained philanthropists such as Carrie Morgridge.[8]

Since 2013,[9] the Aspen Institute together with U.S. magazine The Atlantic and Bloomberg Philanthropies has participated in organizing the annual CityLab event, a summit dedicated to develop strategies for the challenges of urbanization in today's cities.[10]

Walter Isaacson was the president and CEO of Aspen Institute from 2003 to June 2018. Isaacson announced in March 2017 that he would step down as president and CEO at the end of the year.[11] On November 30, 2017, Daniel Porterfield was announced as his successor. Porterfield succeeded Isaacson on June 1, 2018.[12]

References

1. "Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Aspen Institute. 31 December 2017. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
2. "About the Aspen Institute". aspeninstitute.org. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
3. "About - The Aspen Institute". Retrieved 18 October 2016.
4. "Elizabeth Paepcke, 91, a Force In Turning Aspen Into a Resort". The New York Times. 18 June 1994. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
5. "Herbert Bayer, 85, a designer and artist of Bauhaus School". The New York Times. 1 October 1985. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
6. "ASPEN: A 4TH DECADE FOR ANCESTOR...OF A GROWING BUSINESS BREED". The New York Times. 31 August 1981. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
7. "Cuban boy moves to Md. Shore". The Baltimore Sun. 26 April 2000. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
8. Davidson, Joanne (June 17, 2015). "Need a few million dollars, 10,000 digital whiteboards or a shipment of sheep hearts? Don't ask for them". The Denver Post. Retrieved August 15, 2016.
9. "CityLab: Urban Solutions to Global Challenges". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
10. "CityLab 2016". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
11. "Walter Isaacson to leave Aspen Institute, become Tulane professor". NOLA.com. Retrieved 2017-05-30.
12. Platts, Barbara. "Daniel R. Porterfield named Aspen Institute's next president and CEO". Retrieved 2017-11-30.

External links

• Official website

Carnegie Corporation of New York
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/5/20


Carnegie Corporation of New York

The Corporation's headquarters at 437 Madison Avenue in New York
Formation: 9 June 1911; 108 years ago
Founder: Andrew Carnegie
Type: Foundation
Legal status: Nonprofit organization
Purpose: To promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding
Headquarters: New York, United States
Region: Global
Methods: Grant-giving
Fields: Education, democracy, international peace, higher education in Africa
President: Vartan Gregorian
Chair of the Board: Thomas Kean
Revenue (2018): $253 million[1]
Expenses (2018): $180 million[1]
Endowment (2018): $3.5 billion[1]
Website http://www.carnegie.org

The Carnegie Corporation of New York MHL is a philanthropic fund established by Andrew Carnegie in 1911 to support education programs across the United States, and later the world.[2] Carnegie Corporation has endowed or otherwise helped to establish institutions that include the United States National Research Council, what was then the Russian Research Center at Harvard University (now known as the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies),[3] the Carnegie libraries and the Children's Television Workshop. It also for many years generously funded Carnegie's other philanthropic organizations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT), and the Carnegie Institution for Science (CIS).

History

Founding and early years

By 1911 Andrew Carnegie had endowed five organizations in the US and three in the United Kingdom, and given more than $43 million to build public libraries and given another almost $110 million elsewhere. But ten years after he sold the Carnegie Steel Company, more than $150 million remained in his accounts and at 76, he wearied of philanthropic choices. Long-time friend Elihu Root suggested he establish a trust. Carnegie transferred most of his remaining fortune into it, and made the trust responsible for distributing his wealth after he died. Carnegie's previous charitable giving had used conventional organizational structures, but he chose a corporation as the structure for his last and largest trust. Chartered by the State of New York as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the corporation's capital fund, originally worth about $135 million, had a market value of $1.55 billion on March 31, 1999.

In 1911-1912, Carnegie gave the corporation $125 million. At that time the corporation was the largest single philanthropic charitable trust ever established. He also made it a residual legatee under his will so it therefore received an additional $10 million, the remainder of his estate after had paid his other bequests. Carnegie reserved a portion of the corporation's assets for philanthropy in Canada and the then-British Colonies, an allocation first referred to as the Special Fund, then the British Dominions and Colonies Fund, and later the Commonwealth Program. Charter amendments have allowed the corporation to use 7.4 percent of its income in countries that are or once were members of the British Commonwealth.[clarification needed]

In its early years Carnegie served as both president and trustee. His private secretary James Bertram and his financial agent, Robert A. Franks, acted as trustees as well and, respectively, corporation secretary and treasurer. This first executive committee made most of the funding decisions. Other seats on the board were held ex officio by presidents of five previously-established US Carnegie organizations:

• Carnegie Institute (of Pittsburgh) (1896),
• Carnegie Institution of Washington (1902),
• Carnegie Hero Fund Commission (1904),
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) (1905),
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) (1910).

After Carnegie died in 1919, the trustees elected a full-time salaried president as the trust's chief executive officer and ex officio trustee. For a time the corporation's gifts followed the patterns Carnegie had already established. Grants for public libraries and church organs continued until 1917, and also went to other Carnegie organizations, and universities, colleges, schools, and educational agencies. Carnegie's letter of gift to the original trustees making the endowment said that the trustees would "best conform to my wishes by using their own judgement."[4] Corporation strategies changed over the years but remained focused on education, although the trust did also increasingly fund scientific research, convinced that the nation needed more scientific expertise and "scientific management". It also worked to build research facilities for the natural and social sciences. The corporation made large grants to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the National Bureau of Economic Research, Stanford University's now-defunct Food Research Institute[5] and the Brookings Institution, then became interested in adult education and lifelong learning, an obvious follow-on to Carnegie's vision for libraries as "the university of the people". In 1919 it initiated the Americanization Study to explore educational opportunities for adults, primarily for new immigrants.

Frederick P. Keppel

With Frederick P. Keppel as president (1923-1941), the Carnegie Corporation shifted from creating public libraries to strengthening library infrastructure and services, developing adult education, and adding arts education to the programs of colleges and universities. The foundation's grants in this period have a certain eclectic quality and remarkable perseverance in its chosen causes.[6]

Keppel initiated a famous 1944 study of race relations in the United States by the Swedish social economist Gunnar Myrdal in 1937 by naming a non-American outsider as manager of the study. His theory that this task should be done by someone unencumbered by traditional attitudes or earlier conclusions led to Myrdal's widely heralded book American Dilemma (1944). The book had no immediate effect on public policy, but was later much cited in legal challenges to segregation. Keppel believed foundations should make facts available and let them facts speak for themselves. His cogent writings on philanthropy made a lasting impression on field and influenced the organization and leadership of many new foundations.[7]

In 1927 Keppel toured sub-Saharan Africa and recommended a first set of grants to establish public schools in eastern and southern Africa. Other grants went to for municipal library development in South Africa. During 1928 the corporation initiated the Carnegie Commission on the Poor White Problem in South Africa. Better known as the "Carnegie Poor White Study", it promoted strategies to improve the lives of rural Afrikaner whites and other poor whites in general. A memorandum sent to Keppel said there was "little doubt that if the natives were given full economic opportunity, the more competent among them would soon outstrip the less competent whites"[8] Keppel endorsed the project that produced the report, motivated by his concern with maintaining existing racial boundaries.[8] The corporation's concern for the so-called "poor white problem" in South Africa stemmed at least in part from similar misgivings about poor whites in the American South.[8]

White poverty defied traditional understandings of white racial superiority and thus became the subject of study. The report recommended that "employment sanctuaries" be established for poor white workers and that poor white workers replace "native" workers in most skilled aspects of the economy.[9] The authors of the report suggested that white racial deterioration and miscegenation would be the outcome[8] unless something was done to help poor whites, endorsing the necessity of the role of social institutions to play in the successful maintenance of white racial superiority.[9][10] The report expressed trepidation concerning the loss of white racial pride, with the implicit consequence that poor whites would not successfully resist "Africanisation."[8] The report sought, in part, to forestall the historically inevitable accession of a communal, class based, democratic socialist movement aimed at uniting the poor of each race in common cause and brotherhood.[11]

Charles Dollard

World War II and its immediate aftermath were a relatively inactive period for the Carnegie Corporation. Charles Dollard had joined the staff in 1939 as Keppel's assistant and became president in 1948. The foundation took greater interest in the social sciences, and particularly the study of human behavior. The trust also entered into international affairs. Dollard urged it to fund quantitative, "objective" social science research like research in physical sciences, and help to diffuse the results through major universities. The corporation advocated for standardized testing in schools to determine academic merit regardless of the student's socio-economic background. Its initiatives have also included helping to broker the creation of the Educational Testing Service in 1947.

The corporation determined that the US increasingly needed policy and scholarly expertise in international affairs, and so tied into area studies programs at colleges and universities as well as the Ford Foundation. In 1948 the trust also provided the seed money to establish the Russian Research Center at Harvard University, today known as the Davis Center for Russia and Eurasian Studies,[12] as an organization that could address large-scale research from both a policy and educational points of view.

In 1951 the Group Areas Act took effect in South Africa and effectively put the apartheid system into place, leading to political ascendancy for Afrikaners and dispossession for many Africans and colored people suddenly required to live in certain areas of the country only, on pain of imprisonment for remaining in possession of homes in areas designated for whites. The Carnegie corporation pulled its philanthropic endeavors from South Africa for more than two decades after this political change, turning its attention from South Africa to developing East African and West African universities instead.

John Gardner

John W. Gardner was promoted from a staff position to the presidency in 1955. Gardner simultaneously became president of the CFAT, which was housed at the corporation. During Gardner's time in office the Carnegie Corporation worked to upgrade academic competence in foreign area studies and strengthened its liberal arts education program. In the early 1960s it inaugurated a continuing education program and funded development of new models for advanced and professional study by mature women. Important funding went to the key early experiments in continuing education for women, with major grants to the University of Minnesota (1960, co-directors Elizabeth L. Cless and Virginia L. Senders), Radcliffe College (1961, under President Mary Bunting), and Sarah Lawrence College (1962, under Professor Esther Raushenbush).[13] Gardner's interest in leadership development led to the White House Fellows program in 1964.

Notable grant projects in higher education in sub-Saharan Africa include the 1959-60 Ashby Commission study of Nigerian needs in postsecondary education. This study stimulated aid increases from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States to African nations' systems of higher and professional education. Gardner had a strong interest in education, but as a psychologist he believed in the behavioral sciences and urged the corporation to funded much of the US' basic research on cognition, creativity, and the learning process, particularly among young children, associating psychology and education. Perhaps its most important contribution to reform of pre-college education at this time was the series of education studies done by James B. Conant, former president of Harvard University; in particular, Conant's study of comprehensive American high schools (1959) resolved public controversy concerning the purpose of public secondary education, and made the case that schools could adequately educate both average students and the academically gifted.

Under Gardner, the corporation embraced strategic philanthropy—planned, organized, and deliberately constructed to attain stated ends. Funding criteria no longer required just a socially desirable project. The corporation sought out projects that would produce knowledge leading to useful results, communicated to decision-makers, the public, and the media, in order to foster policy debate. Developing programs that larger organizations, especially governments, could implement and scale in size became a major objective. The policy shift to institutional knowledge transfer came in part as a response to relatively diminished resources that made it necessary to leverage assets and "multiplier effects" to have any effect at all. The corporation considered itself a trendsetter in philanthropy, often funding research or providing seed money for ideas while others financed more costly operations. For example, ideas it advanced resulted in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, later adopted by the federal government. A foundation's most precious asset was its sense of direction, Gardner said,[14] gathering a competent professional staff of generalists that he called his "cabinet of strategy," and regarded as a resource as important to the corporation as its endowment.

Alan Pifer

While Gardner's opinion of educational equality was to multiply the channels through which an individual could pursue opportunity, it was during the term of long-time staff member Alan Pifer, who became acting president during 1965 and president during 1967 (again of both Carnegie Corporation and the CFAT), that the foundation began to respond to claims by various groups, including women, for increased power and wealth. The corporation developed three interlocking objectives: prevention of educational disadvantage; equality of educational opportunity in the schools; and broadened opportunities in higher education. A fourth objective cutting across these programs was to improve the democratic performance of government. Grants were made to reform state government as the laboratories of democracy, underwrite voter education drives, and mobilize youth to vote, among other measures. Use of the legal system became a method for achieving equal opportunity in education, as well as redress of grievance, and the corporation joined the Ford and Rockefeller foundations and others in funding educational litigation by civil rights organizations. It also initiated a multifaceted program to train black lawyers in the South for the practice of public interest law and to increase the legal representation of black people.

Maintaining its commitment to early childhood education, the corporation endorsed the application of research knowledge in experimental and demonstration programs, which subsequently provided strong evidence of the long-term positive effects of high-quality early education, particularly for the disadvantaged. A 1980 report on an influential study, the Perry Preschool Project of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation, on the outcomes for sixteen-year-olds enrolled in the experimental preschool programs provided crucial evidence that safeguarded Project Head Start in a time of deep cuts to federal social programs. The foundation also promoted educational children's television and initiated the Children's Television Workshop, producer of Sesame Street and other noted children's programs. Growing belief in the power of educational television prompted creation of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, whose recommendations were adopted into the Public Broadcasting Act of 1968 that established a public broadcasting system. Many other reports on US education the corporation financed at this time, included Charles E. Silberman's acclaimed Crisis in the Classroom (1971), and the controversial Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America by Christopher Jencks (1973). This report confirmed quantitative research, e.g. the Coleman Report, showed that in public schools resources only weakly correlated with educational outcomes, which coincided with the foundation's burgeoning interest in improved school effectiveness.

Becoming involved with South Africa again during the mid-1970s, the corporation worked through universities to increase the legal representation of black people and increase the practice of public interest law. At the University of Cape Town, it established the Second Carnegie Inquiry into Poverty and Development in Southern Africa, this time to examine the legacies of apartheid and make recommendations to nongovernmental organizations for actions commensurate with the long-run goal of achieving a democratic, interracial society.

The influx of nontraditional students and "baby boomers" into higher education prompted formation of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1967), funded by the CFAT. (During 1972, the CFAT became an independent institution after experiencing three decades of restricted control over its own affairs.) In its more than ninety reports, the commission made detailed suggestions for introducing more flexibility into the structure and financing of higher education. One outgrowth of the commission's work was creation of the federal Pell grants program offering tuition assistance for needy college students. The corporation promoted the Doctor of Arts "teaching" degree as well as various off-campus undergraduate degree programs, including the Regents Degree of the State of New York and Empire State College. The foundation's combined interest in testing and higher education resulted in establishment of a national system of college credit by examination (College-Level Entrance Examination Program of the College Entrance Examination Board). Building on its past programs to promote the continuing education of women, the foundation made a series of grants for the advancement of women in academic life. Two other study groups formed to examine critical problems in American life were the Carnegie Council on Children (1972) and the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting (1977), the latter formed almost ten years after the first commission.

David A. Hamburg

David A. Hamburg, a physician, educator, and scientist with a public health background, became president in 1982 intending to mobilize the best scientific and scholarly talent and thinking on "prevention of rotten outcomes" - from early childhood to international relations. The corporation pivoted from higher education to the education and healthy development of children and adolescents, and the preparation of youth for a scientific and technological, knowledge-driven world. In 1984 the corporation established the Carnegie Commission on Education and the Economy. Its major publication, A Nation Prepared (1986), reaffirmed the role of the teacher as the "best hope" for quality in elementary and secondary education. That report led to the establishment a year later of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, to consider ways to attract able candidates to teaching and recognize and retain them. At the corporation's initiative, the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued two reports, Science for All Americans (1989) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993), which recommended a common core of learning in science, mathematics, and technology for all citizens and helped set national standards of achievement.

A new emphasis for the corporation was the danger to world peace posed by the superpower confrontation and weapons of mass destruction. The foundation underwrote scientific study of the feasibility of the proposed federal Strategic Defense Initiative and joined the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to support the analytic work of a new generation of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts. After the end of the USSR, corporation grants helped promote the concept of cooperative security among erstwhile adversaries and projects to build democratic institutions in the former Soviet Union and Central Europe. The Prevention of Proliferation Task Force, coordinated by a grant to the Brookings Institution, inspired the Nunn-Lugar Amendment to the Soviet Threat Reduction Act of 1991, intended to help dismantle Soviet nuclear weapons and reduce proliferation risks. More recently, the corporation addressed interethnic and regional conflict and funded projects seeking to diminish the risks of a wider war resulting from civil strife. Two Carnegie commissions, Reducing the Nuclear Danger (1990), the other Preventing Deadly Conflict (1994), addressed the dangers of human conflict and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The corporation's emphasis in Commonwealth Africa, meanwhile, shifted to women's health and political development and the application of science and technology, including new information systems, to foster research and expertise in indigenous scientific institutions and universities.

During Hamburg's tenure, dissemination achieved even greater primacy with respect to strategic philanthropy. Consolidation and diffusion of the best available knowledge from social science and education research was used to improve social policy and practice, as partner with major institutions with the capability to influence public thought and action. If "change agent" was a major term during Pifer's time, "linkage" became a byword in Hamburg's. The corporation increasingly used its convening powers to bring together experts across disciplinary and sectoral boundaries to create policy consensus and promote collaboration.

Continuing tradition, the foundation established several other major study groups, often directed by the president and managed by a special staff. Three groups covered the educational and developmental needs of children and youth from birth to age fifteen: the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1986), the Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children (1991), and the Carnegie Task Force on Learning in the Primary Grades (1994). Another, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (1988), recommended ways that government at all levels could make more effective use of science and technology in their operations and policies. Jointly with the Rockefeller Foundation, the corporation financed the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, whose report, What Matters Most (1996), provided a framework and agenda for teacher education reform across the country. These study groups drew on knowledge generated by grant programs and inspired follow-up grantmaking to implement their recommendations.

Vartan Gregorian

During the presidency of Vartan Gregorian the corporation reviewed its management structure and grants programs. In 1998 the corporation established four primary program headings: education, international peace and security, international development, and democracy. In these four main areas, the corporation continued to engage with major issues confronting higher education. Domestically, it emphasized reform of teacher education and examined the current status and future of liberal arts education in the United States. Abroad, the corporation sought to devise methods to strengthen higher education and public libraries in Commonwealth Africa. As a cross-program initiative, and in cooperation with other foundations and organizations, the corporation instituted a scholars program, offering funding to individual scholars, particularly in the social sciences and humanities, in the independent states of the former Soviet Union.

Honours

• Honorary-Member of the Order of Liberty, Portugal (5 April 2018)[15]

See also

• Carnegie Commission on the Poor White Problem in South Africa
• Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland
• Carnegie library
• Andrew Carnegie
• Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
• Nicholas Murray Butler

Footnotes

1. "Annual Report 2018" (PDF). Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie Corporation of New York. 2019. Retrieved April 11, 2019.
2. Carnegie Corporation of New York
3. "Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies". Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University. Harvard University. 2017. Retrieved October 29, 2018.
4. Gary Mulholland; Claire MacEachen; Ilias Kapareliotis (2013). Charles Wankel, Ph.D.; Larry E. Pate (eds.). Rise, Fall, Re-Emergence of Social Enterprise. Social Entrepreneurship as a Catalyst for Social Change: Research in Management Education and Development. Information Age Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-1623964474.
5. "Food Research Institute". Stanford University.
6. Richard Glotzer, "A long shadow: Frederick P. Keppel, the Carnegie Corporation and the Dominions and Colonies Fund Area Experts 1923–1943." History of Education 38.5 (2009): 621-648.
7. Walter Jackson, "The Making of a Social Science Classic: Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma." Perspectives in American History 2 (1985): 221-67.
8. The Silent War: Imperialism and the Changing Perception of Race By Frank Füredi. Page 66-67. ISBN 0-8135-2612-4
9. Haunted by Empire: Geographies of Intimacy in North American History By Ann Laura Stoler. Page 66. ISBN 0-8223-3724-X
10. Racially segregated school libraries in KwaZulu/Natal, South Africa by Jennifer Verbeek. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, 23-46 (1986)
11. The American Century: Consensus and Coercion in the Projection of American Power By David Slater and Peter James Taylor. Page 290. ISBN 0-631-21222-1, 1999
12. "History". Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University. Harvard University.
13. Elizabeth L. Cless, "The Birth of an Idea: An Account of the Genesis of Women's Continuing Education," in Helen S. Astin (ed.), Some Action of Her Own: The Adult Woman and Higher Education, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1976, pp.6-7.
14. Ellen Condliffe Lagemann (1992). The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press. p. 183. ISBN 0226467805 – via Google Books.
15. "Cidadãos Estrangeiros Agraciados com Ordens Portuguesas". Página Oficial das Ordens Honoríficas Portuguesas. Retrieved March 20, 2019.

Further reading

• Sara L. Engelhardt (ed.), The Carnegie Trusts and Institutions. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1981.
• Ellen C. Lagemann, The Politics of Knowledge. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1989.
• Inderjeet Parmar, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
• Patricia L Rosenfield, "A world of giving : Carnegie Corporation of New York-- a Century of International Philanthropy." New York : PublicAffairs, 2014.

External links

• Carnegie Corporation of New York
• History of the Carnegie Corporation
• Carnegie Corporation of New York archives at Columbia University
• Time For Ford Foundation & CFR To Divest? Collaboration of the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations with the Council on Foreign Relations

World Economic Forum
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/6/20


World Economic Forum

Headquarters in Cologny, Switzerland.
Motto: Committed to improving the state of the world
Formation: January 1971; 49 years ago (as European Management Forum)
Founder: Klaus Schwab
Type: Nonprofit organization
Legal status: Foundation
Purpose: International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation
Headquarters: Cologny, Switzerland
Region served: Worldwide
Official language: English
Executive Chairman: Klaus Schwab
Website: http://www.weforum.org Edit this at Wikidata
Formerly called: European Management Forum

The World Economic Forum (WEF), based in Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland, is an NGO, founded in 1971. The WEF's mission is cited as "committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas".[1] It is a membership-based organization, and membership is made up of the world's largest corporations.[2]

The WEF hosts an annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland. The meeting brings together some 3,000 business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to five days to discuss global issues, across 500 public and private sessions.

The organization also convenes some six to eight regional meetings each year in locations across Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and India and holds two further annual meetings in China and the United Arab Emirates. Beside meetings, the organization provides a platform for leaders from all stakeholder groups from around the world – business, government and civil society – to collaborate on multiple projects and initiatives.[3] It also produces a series of reports and engages its members in sector-specific initiatives.[4]

History


Professor Klaus Schwab opens the inaugural European Management Forum in Davos in 1971.


F. W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shake hands at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992


Naoto Kan, then Japanese prime minister gives a special message at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011


Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman, World Economic Forum


The economics expert Prime-Minister Meles Zenawi, being a panelist at World Economic Forum on 2012.

The WEF was founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, a business professor at the University of Geneva.[5] First named the European Management Forum, it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987 and sought to broaden its vision to include providing a platform for resolving international conflicts.

In the summer of 1971, Schwab invited 444 executives from Western European firms to the first European Management Symposium held in the Davos Congress Centre under the patronage of the European Commission and European industrial associations, where Schwab sought to introduce European firms to American management practices. He then founded the WEF as a nonprofit organization based in Geneva and drew European business leaders to Davos for the annual meetings each January.[6]

Events in 1973, including the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange rate mechanism and the Arab–Israeli War, saw the annual meeting expand its focus from management to economic and social issues, and, for the first time, political leaders were invited to the annual meeting in January 1974.[7]

Political leaders soon began to use the annual meeting as venue for promoting their interests. The Davos Declaration was signed in 1988 by Greece and Turkey, helping them turn back from the brink of war. In 1992, South African President F. W. de Klerk met with Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the annual meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa. At the 1994 annual meeting, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat reached a draft agreement on Gaza and Jericho.[8]

In late 2015, the invitation was extended to include a North Korean delegation for the 2016 WEF, "in view of positive signs coming out of the country", the WEF organizers noted. North Korea has not been attending the WEF since 1998. The invitation was accepted but after the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test on 6 January, the invitation was revoked, and the country's delegation was made subject to "existing and possible forthcoming sanctions".[9] Despite protests by North Korea calling the decision by the WEF managing board a "sudden and irresponsible" move, the WEF committee maintained the exclusion because "under these circumstances there would be no opportunity for international dialogue".[10]

In 2017, the WEF in Davos attracted considerable attention when for the first time, a head of state from the People's Republic of China was present at the alpine resort. With the backdrop of Brexit, an incoming protectionist US administration and significant pressures on free trade zones and trade agreements, Paramount leader Xi Jinping defended the global economic scheme, and portrayed China as a responsible nation and a leader for environmental causes. He sharply rebuked the current populist movements that would introduce tariffs and hinder global commerce, warning that such protectionism could foster isolation and reduced economic opportunity.[11]

In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the plenary speech, becoming the first head of state from India to deliver the inaugural keynote for the annual meet at Davos. Modi highlighted global warming (climate change), terrorism and protectionism as the three major global challenges, and expressed confidence that they can be tackled with collective effort.[12]

In 2019, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro gave the keynote address at the plenary session of the conference. On his first international trip to Davos, he emphasized liberal economic policies despite his populist agenda, and attempted to reassure the world that Brazil is a protector of the rain forest while utilizing its resources for food production and export. He stated that "his government will seek to better integrate Brazil into the world by mainstreaming international best practices, such as those adopted and promoted by the OECD".[13] Environmental concerns like extreme weather events, and the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation were among the top-ranking global risks expressed by WEF attendees.[14]

Organization

Headquartered in Cologny, the WEF also has offices in New York, Beijing and Tokyo. In January 2015 it was designated an NGO with "other international body" status by the Swiss Federal Government under the Swiss Host-State Act.[15]

On October 10, 2016, the WEF announced the opening of its new Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco. According to the WEF, the center will "serve as a platform for interaction, insight and impact on the scientific and technological changes that are changing the way we live, work and relate to one another".[16]

The World Economic Forum claims to be impartial and that it is not tied to any political, partisan, or national interests. Until 2012, it had observer status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, when it was revoked; it is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Council. The foundation's highest governance body is the foundation board.[17]

The WEF is chaired by Founder and Executive Chairman Professor Klaus Schwab and is guided by a Board of Trustees that is made up of leaders from business, politics, academia and civil society. Members of the Board of Trustees include: Mukesh Ambani, Marc Benioff, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Mark Carney, Laurence D. Fink, Chrystia Freeland, Orit Gadiesh, Fabiola Gianotti, Al Gore, Herman Gref, Angel Gurría, André Hoffmann, Christine Lagarde, Jack Ma, Yo-Yo Ma, Peter Maurer, Luis Alberto Moreno, Muriel Pénicaud, H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, L. Rafael Reif, David M. Rubenstein, Mark Schneider, Klaus Schwab, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Jim Hagemann Snabe, Feike Sijbesma, Heizo Takenaka, Zhu Min.[18]

The Managing Board is chaired by the WEF's President, Børge Brende, and acts as the executive body of the World Economic Forum. Managing Board members are Emma Benameur, Børge Brende, Julien Gattoni, W. Lee Howell, Jeremy Jurgens, Anil Menon, Adrian Monck, Sarita Nayyar, Richard Samans, Olivier M. Schwab, Murat Sönmez, Dominic Kailash Nath Waughray, Saadia Zahidi, Alois Zwinggi.[19]


Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the World Economic Forum in 2009.

Membership

The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region. Membership is stratified by the level of engagement with forum activities, with the level of membership fees increasing as participation in meetings, projects, and initiatives rises.[20] In 2011 an annual membership cost $52,000 for an individual member, $263,000 for "Industry Partner" and $527,000 for "Strategic Partner". An admission fee cost $19,000 per person.[21] In 2014, WEF raised annual fees by 20 percent, bringing the cost for "Strategic Partner" from CHF 500,000 ($523,000) to CHF 600,000 ($628,000).[22]

Activities

Annual meeting in Davos


A sports shop has turned into a temporary informal reception location "Caspian week", WEF 2018.

The flagship event of the World Economic Forum is the invitation-only annual meeting held at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, bringing together chief executive officers from its 1,000 member companies, as well as selected politicians, representatives from academia, NGOs, religious leaders, and the media in an alpine environment. The winter discussions ostensibly focus around key issues of global concern (such as the globalization, capital markets, wealth management, international conflicts, environmental problems and their possible solutions).[4][23] The participants are also taking part in role playing events, such as the Investment Heat Map.[24] Informal winter meetings may have led to as many ideas and solutions as the official sessions.[25]

At the 2018 annual meeting, more than 3,000 participants from nearly 110 countries participated in over 400 sessions. Participation included more than 340 public figures, including more than 70 heads of state and government and 45 heads of international organizations; 230 media representatives and almost 40 cultural leaders were represented.[26]

As many as 500 journalists from online, print, radio, and television take part, with access to all sessions in the official program, some of which are also webcast.[27] Not all the journalists are given access to all areas, however. This is reserved for white badge holders. "Davos runs an almost caste-like system of badges", according to BBC journalist Anthony Reuben. "A white badge means you're one of the delegates – you might be the chief executive of a company or the leader of a country (although that would also get you a little holographic sticker to add to your badge), or a senior journalist. An orange badge means you're just a run-of-the-mill working journalist."[28]

All plenary debates from the annual meeting also are available on YouTube,[29] with photographs at Flickr,[30][31]

Annual meeting in Davos

Year / Dates / Theme

1988 / -- / The new state of the world economy
1989 / -- / Key developments in the 90s: implications for global business
1990 / -- / Competitive cooperation in a decade of turbulence
1991 / -- / The new direction for global leadership
1992 / -- / Global cooperation and megacompetition
1993 / -- / Rallying all the forces for global recovery
1994 / -- / Redefining the basic assumptions of the world economy
1995 / -- / Leadership for challenges beyond growth
1996 / -- / Sustaining globalization
1997 / -- / Building the network society
1998 / -- / Managing volatility and priorities for the 21st century
1999 / -- / Responsible globality: managing the impact of globalization
2000 / -- / New beginnings: making a difference
2001 / 25–30 January / Sustaining growth and bridging the divides: a framework for our global future
2002 / 31 January – 4 February / Leadership in fragile times
2003 / 21–25 January / Building trust
2004 / 21–25 January / Partnering for security and prosperity
2005 / 26–30 January / Taking responsibility for tough choices
2006 / 25–29 January / The creative imperative[32]
2007 / 24–28 January / Shaping the global agenda, the shifting power equation
2008 / 23–27 January / The power of collaborative innovation
2009 / 28 January – 1 February / Shaping the post-crisis world
2010 / 27–30 January / Improve the state of the world: rethink, redesign, rebuild
2011 / 26–30 January / Shared norms for the new reality
2012 / 25–29 January / The great transformation: shaping new models
2013 / 23–27 January / Resilient dynamism[33]
2014 / 22–25 January / The reshaping of the world: consequences for society, politics and business
2015 / 21–24 January / New global context
2016 / 20–23 January / Mastering the fourth industrial revolution
2017 / 17–20 January / Responsive and responsible leadership
2018 / 23–26 January / Creating a shared future in a fractured world
2019 / 22–25 January / Globalization 4.0: shaping a global architecture in the age of the fourth industrial revolution
2020 / 20–24 January / Stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world[34]

Participants


Juan Manuel Santos, President of Colombia, at the 2010 World Economic Forum

In 2011, some 250 public figures (heads of state or government, cabinet ministers, ambassadors, heads or senior officials of international organizations) attended the annual meeting, including: Felipe Calderón, Robert B. Zoellick, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Nicolas Sarkozy, Ban Ki-moon, Angela Merkel, Oommen Chandy, N. Chandrababu Naidu, Ferenc Gyurcsány, François Fillon, Morgan Tsvangirai, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Min Zhu, Paul Kagame, Queen Rania of Jordan, Dmitry Medvedev, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Kevin Rudd, Barney Frank, Kofi Annan, Werner Faymann, Leonel Fernández, Jacob Zuma, Cyril Ramaphosa Naoto Kan, Jean-Claude Trichet, and Zeng Peiyan.[35]

Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Orrin Hatch, Victor Dzau, Georg von Krogh,[36] Bono, Paulo Coelho, and Tony Blair also are regular Davos attendees. Past attendees include George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Charles Butt, Robert Bass, Donald Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Henry Kissinger, Nelson Mandela, Raymond Barre, Julian Lloyd Webber, Sandro Salsano, Wences Casares, Imran Khan, Sadhguru.

Summer annual meeting


Wang Jianlin, Chairman of the Dalian Wanda Group, at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Dalian

In 2007, the foundation established the Annual Meeting of the New Champions (also called Summer Davos), held annually in China, alternating between Dalian and Tianjin, bringing together 1,500 participants from what the foundation calls Global Growth Companies, primarily from rapidly growing emerging countries such as China, India, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil, but also including quickly growing companies from developed countries. The meeting also engages with the next generation of global leaders from fast-growing regions and competitive cities, as well as technology pioneers from around the globe.[37][38] The Premier of China has delivered a plenary address at each annual meeting.

Regional meetings


Prithviraj Chavan, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, India; Sudha Pilay, Member-Secretary, Planning Commission, India; and Ben Verwaayen, chief executive officer, Alcatel-Lucent, France were the co-chairs of the India Economic Summit 2011 in Mumbai


Felipe Calderón, President of Mexico, speaking during Latin America Broadens Its Horizons, a session at the 2007 annual meeting of the World Economic Forum

Every year regional meetings take place, enabling close contact among corporate business leaders, local government leaders, and NGOs. Meetings are held in Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The mix of hosting countries varies from year to year, but consistently China and India have hosted throughout the decade since 2000.[39]

Young Global Leaders

The group of Young Global Leaders[40] consists of 800 people chosen by the WEF organizers as being representative of contemporary leadership, "coming from all regions of the world and representing all stakeholders in society", according to the organization. After five years of participation they are considered alumni.

Social Entrepreneurs

Since 2000, the WEF has been promoting models developed by those in close collaboration with the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship,[41] highlighting social entrepreneurship as a key element to advance societies and address social problems.[42][43] Selected social entrepreneurs are invited to participate in the foundation's regional meetings and the annual meetings where they may meet chief executives and senior government officials. At the Annual Meeting 2003, for example, Jeroo Billimoria met with Roberto Blois, deputy secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, an encounter that produced a key partnership for her organization Child helpline international.[44]

Research reports


Two Academy Award winner, Pakistani journalist Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy at WEF in 2013

The foundation also acts as a think tank, publishing a wide range of reports. In particular, "Strategic Insight Teams" focus on producing reports of relevance in the fields of competitiveness, global risks, and scenario thinking.


Filipino businessman Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala at WEF in 2009

The "Competitiveness Team"[45] produces a range of annual economic reports (first published in brackets): the Global Competitiveness Report (1979) measured competitiveness of countries and economies; The Global Information Technology Report (2001) assessed their competitiveness based on their IT readiness; the Global Gender Gap Report examined critical areas of inequality between men and women; the Global Risks Report (2006) assessed key global risks; the Global Travel and Tourism Report (2007) measured travel and tourism competitiveness; the Financial Development Report (2008)[46] aimed to provide a comprehensive means for countries to establish benchmarks for various aspects of their financial systems and establish priorities for improvement; and the Global Enabling Trade Report (2008) presented a cross-country analysis of the large number of measures facilitating trade among nations.[47]

The "Risk Response Network"[48] produces a yearly report assessing risks which are deemed to be within the scope of these teams, have cross-industry relevance, are uncertain, have the potential to cause upwards of US$10 billion in economic damage, have the potential to cause major human suffering, and which require a multi-stakeholder approach for mitigation.[49]

Initiatives

Health

The Global Health Initiative was launched by Kofi Annan at the annual meeting in 2002. The GHI's mission was to engage businesses in public-private partnerships to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and health systems.


Mohammad Khatami at Economic Forum in 2004

The Global Education Initiative (GEI), launched during the annual meeting in 2003, brought together international IT companies and governments in Jordan, Egypt, and India[50] that has resulted in new personal computer hardware being available in their classrooms and more local teachers trained in e-learning. The GEI model, which is scalable and sustainable, now is being used as an educational blueprint in other countries including Rwanda.

On 19 January 2017 the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a global initiative to fight epidemics, was launched at WEF in Davos. The internationally funded initiative aims at securing vaccine supplies for global emergencies and pandemics, and to research new vaccines for tropical diseases, that are now more menacing. The project is funded by private and governmental donors, with an initial investment of US$460m from the governments of Germany, Japan and Norway, plus the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.[51]

Society

The Water Initiative brings together diverse stakeholders such as Alcan Inc., the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, USAID India, UNDP India, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Government of Rajasthan, and the NEPAD Business Foundation to develop public-private partnerships on water management in South Africa and India.

In an effort to combat corruption, the Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI) was launched by CEOs from the Engineering and Construction, Energy and Metals, and Mining industries at the annual meeting in Davos during January 2004. PACI is a platform for peer exchange on practical experience and dilemma situations. Approximately 140 companies have joined the initiative.[52]

Environment

Further information: Business action on climate change

In the beginning of the 21th century the forum begun to increasingly deal with environmental issues[53]. In the Davos Manifesto 2020 it is said that a company among other: "acts as a steward of the environmental and material universe for future generations. It consciously protects our biosphere and champions a circular, shared and regenerative economy." "responsibly manages near-term, medium-term and long-term value creation in pursuit of sustainable shareholder returns that do not sacrifice the future for the present." "is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfils human and societal aspirations as part of the broader social system. Performance must be measured not only on the return to shareholders, but also on how it achieves its environmental, social and good governance objectives."[54]

The Environmental Initiative covers climate change and water issues. Under the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, the U.K. government asked the World Economic Forum at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles in 2005 to facilitate a dialogue with the business community to develop recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This set of recommendations, endorsed by a global group of CEOs, was presented to leaders ahead of the G8 Summit in Toyako and Hokkaido held in July 2008.[55][56]

In January 2017, WEF launched the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE), which is a global public private partnership seeking to scale circular economy innovations.[57][58] PACE is co-chaired by Frans van Houten (CEO of Philips), Naoko Ishii (CEO of the Global Environment Facility, and the head of UN Environment (UNEP).[59] The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the International Resource Panel, Circle Economy and Accenture serve as knowledge partners.

The Environment and Natural Resource Security Initiative was emphasized for the 2017 meeting to achieve inclusive economic growth and sustainable practices for global industries. With increasing limitations on world trade through national interests and trade barriers, the WEF has moved towards a more sensitive and socially minded approach for global businesses with a focus on the reduction of carbon emissions in China and other large industrial nations.[60]

Also in 2017, WEF launched the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) for the Earth Initiative, a collaboration among WEF, Stanford University and PwC, and funded through the Mava Foundation.[61] In 2018, WEF announced that one project within this initiative was to be the Earth BioGenome Project, the aim of which is to sequence the genomes of every organism on Earth.[62]

The World Economic Forum is working to eliminate plastic pollution, stating that by the year 2050 it will consume 15% of the global carbon budget and will pass by its weight fishes in the world's oceans. One of the methods is to achieve circular economy[63][64].

The theme of 2020 World Economic Forum annual meeting was "Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World". Climate change and sustainability were central themes of discussion. Many argued that GDP is failed to represent correctly the wellbeing and that fossil fuel subsydies should be stopped. Many of the participants said that a better capitalism is needed. Al Gore summarized the ideas in the conference as: “I don’t want to be naive, but I want to acknowledge that the center of the global economy is now saying things that many of us have dreamed they might for a long time,” "“The version of capitalism we have today in our world must be reformed,”[65].

In this meeting the World Economic Forum:

• Launched the Trillion Tree Campaign an initiative aiming to "grow, restore and conserve 1 trillion trees around the world - in a bid to restore biodiversity and help fight climate change". Donald Trump joined the initiative. The forum stated that: "Nature-based solutions – locking-up carbon in the world’s forests, grasslands and wetlands – can provide up to one-third of the emissions reductions required by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement targets," adding that the rest should come from the heavy industry, finance and transportation sectors. One of the targets is to unify existing reforestation projects[66]
• Discussed the issue of climate change and called to expanding renewable energy, energy efficiency change the patterns of consumption and remove carbon from the atmosphere. The forum claimed that the climate crisis will became a climate apocalypse if the temperature will rise by 2 degree. The forum called to fulfill the commitments in Paris Agreement. Jennifer Morgan the executive director of Greenpeace said that as to the beginning of the forum, fossil fuels still get 3 times more money than climate solutions[67]

Global Future Councils

The Network of Global Future Councils meets annually in the United Arab Emirates and virtually several times a year.[68] The second WEF annual meeting was held in Dubai in November 2017, when there were 35 distinct councils focused on a specific issue, industry or technology.[69] In 2017 members met with representatives and partners of WEF's new Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.[70] Ideas and proposals are taken forward for further discussion at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters in January.[69]

Criticism


Protest march against the WEF in Basel, 2006.

During the late 1990s the foundation, along with the G7, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund, came under heavy criticism by anti-globalization activists who claimed that capitalism and globalization were increasing poverty and destroying the environment. Ten thousand demonstrators disrupted a regional meeting of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, obstructing the path of two hundred delegates to the meeting.[71] Small demonstrations are held in Davos on most but not all years, organised by the local Green Party (see Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003) to protest against what have been called the meetings of "fat cats in the snow", a tongue-in-cheek term used by rock singer Bono.[72]

After 2014, the protest movement against the World Economic Forum largely died down, and Swiss police noted a significant decline in attending protesters, 20 at most during the meeting in 2016. While protesters are still more numerous in large Swiss cities, the protest movement itself has undergone significant change.[73] Around 150 Tibetans and Uighurs protested in Geneva and 400 Tibetans in Bern against the visit of the China's paramount leader Xi Jinping for the 2017 meeting, with subsequent confrontations and arrests.[74]

Participation of NGOs

The WEF attracts a number of non-governmental organisations, including Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Amnesty International, and the ICRC.

Winnie Byanyima, the executive director of the anti-poverty confederation Oxfam International co-chaired the 2015 meeting, where she presented a critical report of global wealth distribution based on statistical research by the Credit Suisse Research Institute. In this study, the richest one percent of people in the world own forty-eight percent of the world's wealth.[75]

At the 2019 meeting, the Oxfam director presented another report claiming that the gap between rich and poor has only increased. The report “Public Good or Private Wealth” stated that 2,200 billionaires worldwide saw their wealth grow by 12 percent while the poorest half saw its wealth fall by 11 percent. Oxfam calls for a global tax overhaul to increase and harmonise global tax rates for corporations and wealthy individuals.[76]

Public cost of security

In September 2018, the city of Davos approved by popular vote to increase the security budget for the yearly meeting to CHF 1.125 million. Later that month, the Swiss house of representatives (Nationalrat) also agreed to increase police and military expenditures to CHF 39 million while the Kanton of Graubünden contributes CHF 2.25 million, the same amount the WEF is paying for security costs.[77]

Private vs public meetings

Since the annual meeting in January 2003 in Davos, an Open Forum Davos,[78] which was co-organized by the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, is held concurrently with the Davos forum, opening up the debate about globalization to the general public. The Open Forum has been held in the local high school every year, featuring top politicians and business leaders. It is open to all members of the public free of charge.[79][80]

"Davos Man"

"Davos Man" is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely "international" and who despise the people of their own country, being loyal only to global capital itself. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase "Davos Man",[81] they are people who "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite's global operations". In his 2004 article "Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite", Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[82]

Gender debate

Since 2011, the World Economic Forum has been addressing its very own gender quota, to introduce at least one woman for every five senior executives that attended. Female participation increased from 9% to 15% between 2001 and 2005. In 2016, 18% of the WEF attendees were female; this number increased to 21% in 2017, and 24% in 2020, five years of growth.[83][84]

See also

• 2009 Davos incident
• Asian Leadership Conference
• Boao Forum for Asia
• Davos process
• European Business Summit
• International Labour Organization
• International Transport Forum
• Istanbul World Political Forum
• St. Petersburg International Economic Forum
• Sustainable development
• World Knowledge Forum

References

1. "World Economic Forum: Our Mission".
2. "World Economic Forum: Our Members and Partners".
3. "World Economic Forum: Our Platforms".
4. Pigman. pp. 41–42.
5. Pigman. pp. 6–22.
6. Kellerman. p. 229.
7. (registration required) "Interview: Klaus Schwab" Archived 4 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine.Financial Times. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
8. Lowe, Felix (14 January 2008). "WEF and Davos: A Brief History" Archived 3 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine. The Telegraph. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
9. Keaten Jamey, AP (13 January 2016). "World Economic Forum revokes invitation to North Korea to attend the annual meeting in Davos" Archived 11 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 14 January 2016.
10. AFP (15 January 2016). N. Korean fury over 'sinister' WEF Davos forum exclusion Archived 7 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine. The China Post. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
11. P. S. Goodman (2017). "In Era of Trump, China’s President Champions Economic Globalization". The New York Times(News Analysis). Retrieved 17 January 2017.
12. Livemint (23 January 2018). "WEF Davos 2018 highlights: Narendra Modi warns of three global threats". livemint.com/. Retrieved 8 February 2018.
13. Speech by the President of the Republic, Jair Bolsonaro, at the Plenary Session of the World Economic Forum – Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2019. Brasil. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
14. Taylor, Chloe (Jan 2019). Global tension is hampering our ability to fight climate change, Davos survey warns CNBC. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
15. "Press Release: World Economic Forum Gains Formal Status in Switzerland". 23 January 2015.
16. "New Forum Center to Advance Global Cooperation on Fourth Industrial Revolution". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 20 November 2016.
17. "The Leadership Team | World Economic Forum-The Leadership Team". Weforum.org. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
18. "World Economic Forum, Leadership and Governance". Retrieved 20 November 2019.
19. "World Economic Forum, Governance and Leadership". Retrieved 20 November 2011.
20. "Members | World Economic Forum-Members". Weforum.org. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
21. "The Truth About Davos: Here's Why People Happily Pay $71,000+ To Come – And Why They'll Keep Paying More Every Year". Business Insider. 26 January 2011.
22. "Sky-high Davos summit fees leave multinationals feeling deflated". The Financial Times. 10 October 2014.
23. "Q&A: World Economic Forum 2009" Archived 23 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine BBC News. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
24. Madslien, Jorn (26 January 2013). "Q&A: World Economic Forum 2009". BBC News. Archived from the original on 4 January 2016. Retrieved 2015-02-23. Madslien, Jorn BBC News – Davos Man eyes investment opportunities
25. Weber, Tim (26 January 2010). "A Beginners' Guide to Davos" Archived 23 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine BBC News. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
26. "Forum Closes with Call to Action: Globalize Compassion and Leave No One Behind". 26 January 2018. Retrieved 16 October 2018.
27. "Forum's homepage". Weforum.org. Retrieved 7 March2010.[permanent dead link]
28. Reuben, Anthony (27 January 2013). "My first Davos - what I learned". BBC News. Archived from the original on 4 January 2016. Retrieved 2015-06-08. My first Davos – what I learned
29. "Kanaal van WorldEconomicForum". YouTube. 31 January 2010. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
30. "World Economic Forum's Photostream". Flickr. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
31. "48TH WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ANNUAL MEETING". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
32. Howe, Dave (9 August 2009). "Creativity Can Save the World". HuffPost. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
33. founder Klaus Schwab's declaration that "the need for global cooperation has never been greater".
34. "Economic, Financial and Banking Awareness 10 November 2019". PendulumEdu. PendulumEdu. 10 November 2019.
35. "World Economic Forum 2011 Abridged List of Participants"(PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2012.
36. "How can business clusters drive success". World Economic Forum.
37. "World Economic Forum: The Inaugural Annual Meeting of the New Champions". China.org. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
38. "Summer Davos To Put Dalian on Business Map". China Daily (via People's Daily). 1 August 2007. Retrieved 25 January2011.
39. "World Economic Forum – Events". Weforum.org. World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 9 January 2009. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
40. "Forum of Young global Leaders". Weforum.org. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
41. "Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship – Home". Schwabfound.org. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
42. Fruchterman, Jim (31 January 2005). "Davos Diary: Meetings of Minds" Archived 23 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine BBC News. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
43. Moore. p. 209.
44. Bornstein. p. 272.
45. "Issues | World Economic Forum-Issues". Weforum.org. World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 1 December 2010. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
46. "WEF – Financial Development Report". World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 18 August 2013.
47. Pigman. pp. 43, 92–112.
48. "Global Risks | World Economic Forum-Global Risks". Weforum.org. World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 1 December 2010. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
49. Global Risk Report 2009 Archived 25 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine World Economic Forum.
50. India Brand Equity Foundation. "India Adda World Economic Forum at Davos" Archived 21 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine 2012.
51. D. G. McNeil Jr (2017). Donors and Drug Makers Offer $500 Million to Control Global Epidemics. The New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2017.
52. Pigman. p. 115.
53. "Environment and Natural Resource Security". World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
54. Schwab, Klaus. "Davos Manifesto 2020: The Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth Industrial Revolution". World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
55. Black, Richard (20 June 2008). "Business Chiefs Urge Carbon Curbs" Archived 23 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine BBC News. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
56. Szabo, Michael (19 June 2008). "Business Chiefs Call for G8 Climate Leadership" Archived 31 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine Reuters. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
57. "Circular Economy". World Economic Forum.
58. "TopLink". toplink.weforum.org.
59. "Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy". Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy.
60. Shaping the Future of Environment and Natural Resource Security The World Economic Forum Davos 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
61. "New global initiative will help harness 4IR technologies tackle environmental issues". Waterbriefing. 21 September 2017. Retrieved 26 January 2018.
62. Casey, JP (25 January 2018). "Project to sequence all genomes on Earth to begin in Amazon rainforest". Drug Development Technology. Retrieved 26 January 2018.
63. Hughes, Kristin. "3 ways we are making an impact on plastic pollution". World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
64. Rooney, Katharine. "The story of two brothers who travelled through a river of trash and inspired a nation". World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
65. WORLAND, JUSTIN (27 January 2020). "How Davos Became a Climate Change Conference". Times. Retrieved 31 January2020.
66. Pomeroy, Robin. "One trillion trees - World Economic Forum launches plan to help nature and the climate". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
67. Pomeroy, Robin. "What you need to know about Davos 2020: How to save the planet". World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
68. "Global Future Councils". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 11 June 2018.
69. "Dubai to host second WEF annual meeting of Global Future Councils". Al Arabiya English. 11 October 2017. Retrieved 11 June 2018.
70. "Home, Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution". Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 11 June 2018.
71. Barret, Bernard (15 November 2000). "Beating Up – A Report on Police Batons and the News Media at the World Economic Forum, Melbourne, September 2000" Archived 26 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine. [Australian Politics]. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
72. Noon, Chris (21 January 2006). "Bono Teams Up With Amex, Gap For Product Red" Archived 8 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine. Forbes. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
73. C. Thumshirn (2017). Warum das WEF keine Demonstranten mehr anlockt(in German). Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Retrieved 17 January 2017.
74. Tibetans and Uighurs protest in Geneva. SWI swissinfo.ch (Politics-Conflict). Retrieved 22 January 2017.
75. Vara, Vauhini (January 2015). Critics of Oxfam’s Poverty Statistics Are Missing the Point. The New Yorker. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
76. Taylor, Chloe (January 2019). Richest 26 people now own same wealth as poorest half of the world, Oxfam claims cnbc.com. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
77. Davos stimmt ab - Mehr Geld für das WEF(in German) SRF.ch. Retrieved 23 January 2019.
78. "Open Forum Davos, Schweizerischer Evangelischer Kirchenbund". Openforumdavos.ch. Archived from the original on 2 February 2010. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
79. Pigman. p. 130.
80. "Open Forum". YouTube. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
81. Timothy Garton Ash. Davos man's death wish Archived 21 August 2008 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 3 February 2005
82. Samuel Huntington. "Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite" Archived 14 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The National Interest, Spring 2004
83. A. Gibbs (2017). As world leaders descend upon Davos, the gender debate rumbles on CNBC News. Retrieved 17 January 2017.
84. A. Gibbs (2017). The percentage of women at Davos is greater than ever before Quartz. Retrieved 19 November 2019.

Sources

• Bornstein, David (2007). How to Change the World – Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. Oxford University Press (New York City). ISBN 978-0-19-533476-0. 358 pages.
• Kellerman, Barbara (1999). Reinventing Leadership – Making the Connection Between Politics and Business. State University of New York Press (Albany, New York). ISBN 978-0-7914-4071-1. 268 pages.
• Moore, Mike (2003). A World Without Walls – Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, England; New York City). ISBN 978-0-521-82701-0. 292 pages.
• Pigman, Geoffrey Allen (2007). The World Economic Forum – A Multi-Stakeholder Approach to Global Governance. Routledge (London, England; New York City). ISBN 978-0-415-70204-1. 175 pages.
• Rothkopf, David J. (2008). Superclass – The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Farrar, Straus and Giroux (New York City). ISBN 978-0-374-27210-4. 376 pages.
• Schwab, Klaus M.; Kroos, Hein (1971). Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau. Verein Dt. Maschinenbau-Anst. e.V.. Maschinenbau-Verl (Frankfurt om Main, Germany). OCLC 256314575.
• Wolf, Michael (1999). The Entertainment Economy – How Mega-Media Forces Are Transforming Our Lives. Random House (New York City). ISBN 978-0-8129-3042-9. 336 pages.
• "Behind the Scenes at Davos" broadcast 14 February 2010 on 60 Minutes
• ´How to Open the World Economic Forum´ – Matthias Lüfkens in Interview with 99FACES.tv
• "Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World" launched May 2010, Doha, Qatar

External links

• Official website

Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue
Edited by Steven C. Rockefeller and John C. Elder
by Stuart Smithers
Tricycle
FALL 1992

SPIRIT AND NATURE: Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue
Edited by Steven C. Rockefeller and John C. Elder.
Beacon Press: Boston, 1992.
226 pp. $30.00 (clothbound) $16.00 (paperback).

One of the most common and enduring stereotypes in environmental literature is the idea that Eastern religions promote a sense of harmony between human beings and nature. On the other side of the stereotype stand the religions of the West, promoting the separation of human beings and nature and encouraging acts of domination, exploitation, and control....

This image of an affirmative Eastern attitude toward nature must have lurked in the minds of the environmental activists and friends of the environment who gathered at Middlebury College in the fall of 1990 to hear the 14th Dalai Lama speak on the topic of "Spirit and Nature." Tibet, like traditional Japan, has been the focus of a certain Western yearning for the East as a place to discover not only a unique sense of wisdom (what one observer called "an intimate and creative relationship with the vast and profound secrets of the human soul") but a wisdom that can insure "the future survival of Earth itself."6 There was a hush in the Middlebury field house as the Dalai Lama seated himself on the stage and began to speak.7 It must have been a surprise when he began by saying that he had nothing to offer to those who came expecting to hear about ecology or the environment, and even more surprising when he interpreted the word "nature" as a reference to "the fundamental nature of all reality" and entered into a discourse on the Buddhist concept of Emptiness. To explain the connection between nature and Emptiness, he said: "When talking about the fundamental nature of reality, one could sum up the entire understanding of that nature in a simple verse: 'Form is emptiness and emptiness is form' (The Heart Sutra). This simple line sums up the Buddhist understanding of the fundamental nature of reality."8 And he went on to explain how Tibetan philosophers use logical analysis to develop their view of Emptiness and to pursue what he said was the "expressed aim of Buddhism," namely, the purification and development of the mind.

The Dalai Lama's words were surprising not because he seemed unfriendly toward the "natural" world in the prevailing sense of the word (that is, toward ecosystems of plants, animals, the atmosphere, the ocean, rivers, mountains and so on), but because he so gently and easily shifted attention away from the natural world toward the development of human nature and the purification of the mind. The sense of surprise only became more acute when he began to develop the concept of Emptiness and indicated that it involved a denial of the reality of what he took to be "nature" itself. To say that "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form," in the language of Mahayana philosophy, is to say that all things are "empty" of any inherent "nature" or identity.9 The purification of the mind, which the Dalai Lama called the "expressed aim of Buddhism," comes from stripping away false concepts of the "nature" of things and resting content with their Emptiness. In other words, "nature" (in one possible meaning of the word) may very well be a barrier to overcome in a quest for human development.

What should we make of the gap between the Dalai Lama's words and the conventional image of the Buddhist attitude toward nature? Does the Dali Lama see something in the Buddhist tradition that others do not? Is the image of Buddhism as an ecologically friendly tradition simply an artifact of the Western imagination?

-- Is There a Buddhist Philosophy of Nature?, by Malcolm David Eckel

-- Review: [Untitled] Reviewed Work: Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue, by Steven C. Rockefeller, John C. Elder, by Leslie A. Muray

Driving toward Seattle in bumper-to-bumper traffic, I am faced again with a certain despair for the environment and myself. Here I am rushing to Seattle past urban sprawl and “industrial parks” (a wonderful oxymoron) in a truck that con­sumes far more energy than is necessary, pondering the conse­quences of our ugly “progress”­ only to realize I have arrived at these same observations, conclu­sions, and sentiments before. I have begun to recognize a familiar feeling that life is moving in circles, that for all the politically correct talk about the environ­ment, the charters, and the summits, nothing really changes for the better, and just identifying environmental and ecological problems is no longer important. The next far more difficult step must be to question how these problems can be corrected and to admit that many of the proposals already put forward have failed; not because the ideas were wrong, but because advocates have not appreciated the need for a more sophisticated understanding of human nature in relationship to the environmental crisis. Spirit and Nature, edited by Steven C. Rockefeller and John Elder, is an important new direction in envi­ronmental discourse because it squarely faces the question of reli­gious force, both personal and institutional, as a prime player in the politics of environment.

The text contains the lectures and addresses of a four-day symposium entitled “Spirit and Nature: Religion, Ethics, and Environmental Crisis,” which was held at Middlebury College (where both Rockefeller and Elder are professors) in the fall of 1990. The symposium presented Buddhist, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, and Native American religious perspectives.

Every chapter in Spirit and Nature sounds a note that could be lengthened, shortened, or tuned in some way; and while each voice is intelligent and caring and unique, several recurring themes and questions emerge.

In different ways many of the authors have arrived at the central importance of “interdependence” as a primary principle for under­standing ecological reality and for the actions which proceed from such an understanding. This notion is hardly unfamiliar to Buddhists and is included in the Dalai Lama’s remarks (“A Tibetan Buddhist Perspective”) at the symposium. According to the Buddhist view of “interdepen­dence,” our lives are propelled by craving or desire, and that fact has not been overlooked by other traditions. Ismar Schorsch (“Learning to Live with Less: A Jewish Perspective”), for example, laments our lack of self-restraint and the “ferocious consumerism of American life,” while Sallie McFague (“A Square in the Quilt”) alludes to the same dilemma in her discussion of St. Augustine’s understanding of sin as “living a lie”:

… living in false relations to God and other beings. It [sin] is, as he said in a term that may sound quaint and anachronistic but which is ecologically up-to-date, “concupiscence,” an insatiable appetite …

Recognizing this fact of human nature (desire, the force of desire, and its many subtle and uncon­scious layers of manifestation) must lead to important questions about the challenge we face as the Western “lifestyle” of consumerism spreads across the globe: should we expect rational discourse to prevail against non­rational forces, especially the non­rational forces of consumerism, which is nothing more than a meaningless economics of desire?

The full danger of consumerist societies and our inability to convert societies to a more envi­ronmentally sound lifestyle is only weakly represented in Spirit and Nature because, I think, the book is one-sided. While I consider myself to be very much on the same side, I wonder how useful it is to talk to oneself, as it were. Ronald Engel (“Liberal Democ­racy and the Fate of the Earth”) seems to be approaching this point when he writes: “We need to pause for a moment and listen to the two sides of this debate.”

Spirit and Nature is undoubt­edly a successful book because it makes us return to the primary issues of the environmental move­ment and ask, What next? One very real possibility introduced in Spirit and Nature is to convene another conference that would include “the other”: that is, intelligent and successful people in busi­ness, politics, science, and technol­ogy who do not share the point of view of the authors and editors. Listening to “the other,” I might gain a new respect for the incredi­ble forces that resist restraint, forces which—even though I am in sympathy with ecology and conservation movements—I find echoes of in myself: a certain lazi­ness, a refusal to give up a life of luxury (like the luxury of driving alone to Seattle) for the Spartan life advocated by Socrates or even Zen Master Dogen.

Professor Schorsch discusses his use of pen and paper for writ­ing as a way of resisting mecha­nization. But one wonders if his secretary did not process his words on a computer. This type of small contradiction is also a part of human nature, and the inability to see such contradic­tions certainly is a part of human nature and the resistance to change. It would be helpful to meet with “the other,” especially if one came to realize that “the other” exists, in some form, in all of us and that “the other” might offer some unanticipated oppor­tunities for change.

Nevertheless, the intriguing religious orientation offered in Spirit and Nature suggests that the environmental crisis exists not because we have forgotten the world, but because we have forgotten ourselves. In one of the most demanding chapters, Seyyed Hossein Nasr (“Islam and the Environmental Crisis”) describes us as a “humanity in rebellion against both heaven and earth,” and concludes that:

The solution of the environmental crisis can come about only when the modern spiritual malaise is cured and there is a rediscovery of the world of the Spirit, which, being compassionate, always gives Itself to those open and receptive to Its vivifying rays.

And yet if one does believe that a “spiritual sense” is a necessary prerequisite to an enlightened ecoview, then perhaps the environmental crisis is even worse than previously thought. One might even argue that to view the environmental crisis as a spiritual issue or from a spiritual point of view only reflects the pitifully low ebb of “Spirit” in our general culture. As the Dalai Lama noted:

Taking care of the planet is nothing special, nothing sacred or holy. It’s just like taking care of your house. We have no other planet, no other house, except this one….We cannot go to any other planet. If the moon is seen from a distance, it appears quite beautiful. But if we go there to stay, I think, it would be horrible. So, our blue planet is much happier. Therefore, we have to take care of our own place. This is not something special or holy. This is just a practical fact!

Stuart Smithers is assistant professor of South Asian Religions at the University of Puget Sound.

Review: [Untitled] Reviewed Work: Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is a Religious Issue, by Steven C. Rockefeller, John C. Elder
by Leslie A. Muray
American Journal of Theology & Philosophy
January, 1994

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Jeff Gibbs] Where did the idea of colleges going green by burning trees come from, anyway? A little college called Middlebury, in the heart of Vermont.

[Man] Welcome to the celebration of the opening of Middlebury’s new biomass gasification system. It’s now my great pleasure to introduce this afternoon’s speaker, Bill McKibben.

[Audience clapping]

[Bill McKibben] What powers a learning community? And as of this afternoon, the easy answer to that is wood chips. Um, it’s incredibly beautiful to stand over there, and see that big bunker full of wood chips. You can put any kind of wood in, you know: oak, willow, whatever you want. Pretty much anything that burns we can toss in there if we can chip it down to the right size. And there are very few similar cases any place in this country of that kind of change over that scale. But it shows it could happen anywhere, and it should happen anywhere. In fact, it must happen everywhere.

-- Planet of the Humans, written, produced and directed by Jeff Gibbs

Bill McKibben resides in Ripton, Vermont, with his wife, writer Sue Halpern. Their only child, a daughter named Sophie, was born in 1993 in Glens Falls, New York. He is a Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, where he also directs the Middlebury Fellowships in Environmental Journalism. McKibben is also a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute. He is a long-time Methodist.

-- Bill McKibben, by Wikipedia

This is a collection of papers given at the four-day symposium entitled "Spirit and Nature: Religion, Ethics, and Environmental Crisis" held at Middlebury College during the fall of 1990. Significantly, Bill Moyers produced a public television documentary, first aired in June 1991, about the symposium.

The "Introduction" gives an excellent overview of the history of the discussion concerning religion and ecology, environmental ethics, and the development of deep ecology and ecofeminism since the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. An important and informative aspect of this section is the inclusion of the efforts of international organizations and associations to formulate a global ethic of sustainable development (9-11). The first chapter, "A Tradition of Thanksgiving," by Audrey Shenandoah, a Clan Mother of the Onondaga nations, is the keynote presentation of the symposium. This is a commentary on the thanksgiving prayer with which she opened (unfortunately, it is not reproduced in the volume), which stresses various dimensions of humanity's inherent spiritual connection to the earth.

Readers unfamiliar with Jewish perspectives on ecology will find "Learning to live with less: A Jewish Perspective" by Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor and Professor of Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, illuminating. His discussion centers on the following question: "Can religion responsibly imbue the individual citizen with a spiritual renewal that will enable his world view, enlarge his inner life, and temper his wants?"(30). Schorsch develops "a portrait of Judaism as a millennial effort to foster a religious culture of self-restraint that intuitively respects the value and integrity of its natural environment"(30). This "religious culture of self-restraint" can be found in Jewish law's injunction against inflicting pain on animals, its restrictions on the use of land, and participatory study through which the Torah is internalized (30-37).

In "A Square in the Quilt: One Theologian's Contribution to the Planetary Agenda," Sallie McFague both reiterates and moves beyond some of her main themes in Models of God. Shifting emphasis from dualism, authority, and hierarchy to holism, participation, and community, she focuses on the "the common creation story," the contemporary picture of the world depicted by postmodern science that can potentially enable contemporary theology to make consonant with contemporary visions of reality its understanding of God, thus rendering its claims credible (50). Radically interrelated and interdependent with everything in the universe, humans are co-creators with God, who is "in, with, and under the entire evolutionary process" (51). Emphasizing our belonging to the earth, McFague links justice and ecological issues through the common creation story. She reminds us, with a sense of urgency, of our planetary citizenship, of the fact that the planetary agenda is everyone's agenda, and calls us to contribute one square to the quilt (51-58).

Of particular interest to readers of this journal is J. Ronald Engel's "Liberal Democracy and the Fate of the Earth," bearing the obvious influence of John Dewey. Engel focuses on the need to understand the ecological crisis as a crisis of citizenship, in the sense of extending the concept to the non-human natural world and our responsibility for its despoliation (64-66). This crisis of citizenship must be understood as a crisis in liberal democracy: its formalism and consumerism, its being an expression of the mechanistic, dualistic, "ontological individualism" of the modern world view that is at the root of the ecological crisis and that has to be supplanted by an understanding of democracy rooted in an ontology of the individual-in-community inclusive of the whole of the web of life (66-74).

In this discussion, the author points out that scientific reason and critical reason are indispensable to the liberal democratic tradition and environmental responsibility. Just as the histories and futures of the modern sciences and the liberal democratic tradition are inseparably linked, indispensable to the very meaning of democracy is "the liberal conviction that all our traditions and personal beliefs must be submitted to searching self-criticism and reconstruction in light of our changing situation and the emergence of new knowledge and insight" (68). Finally, he addresses the urgent problem of awakening faith, "the faith of prophetic liberal democracy ... that this immediate and absolute world of ordinary human experience, this world we share with each other and all other living things on this earth, is the sphere of ultimacy" (76). That awakening is awakening to Spirit in Nature (78). Engel's use of the work of Vaclav Havel not only shows a perceptive understanding of Central and Eastern Europe but also displays a creative contrast in meaning of democracy and ecological responsibility between the West and the former Eastern bloc.

One of the more fascinating and illuminating pieces in this volume is Seyyed Hossein Nasr's "Islam and the Environmental Crisis," written from a Sufi perspective. Nasr espouses a panentheistic position: God is the All-Encompassing whose creation is a theophany, the "Cosmic Quran" (88-89), revealing God. The role of humans is to be vice-gerents of God (92). He expresses this notion of vice-gerency, complemented by servanthood, in the following manner:

In the same way that God sustains and cares for the world, humankind must nurture and care for the ambience in which they play the central role. They cannot neglect the care of the natural world without betraying that "trust" (al-amanah) which they accepted when they bore witness to God's lordship in the pre-eternal covenant (al-mithag) ... (92-93).

Nasr maintains that it is the modern turning away from God the All-Encompassing that has led to the environmental crisis (93). The author concludes with a perceptive and informative discussion of the Islamic world's responses to modernity, particularly in relation to Western imperialism and domination (97-106).

Some readers of this journal may be interested in Nasr's brief allusions to the Pakistani philosopher-poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal, whose panentheism has been treated at some length by Charles Hartshorne (see especially, Philosophers Speak of God). Nasr mentions that, while Iqbal was too preoccupied with problems affecting the Islamic world and too profoundly influenced by nineteenth century philosophy to make environmental concerns central to his work, there are glimpses of the kind of ecological attitude he is advocating in some of the Pakistani philosopher's poetry (99). Iqbal was profoundly influenced by Bergson and the impact of Whitehead is no less evident; his work (see especially, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam and Islam as an Ethical and a Political Ideal) is indispensable in gaining an understanding of Islam. I hasten to add that Nasr is more than a worthy successor to Iqbal as an Islamic dialogue partner for North American radical empiricists, naturalists, and religious liberals interested in environmental issues.

"A Tibetan Buddhist Perspective on Spirit in Nature" by Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, is a down-to-earth, non-technical presentation of a Buddhist understanding of nature, reality, and response to the environmental crisis. Seeking "a practical ethic of caring for our home" which he grounds in the Buddhist understanding of interdependence (117), he advocates the cultivation of compassion, which he identifies with "a strong sense of care and concern for the happiness of the other..." (118-19). Taking increased responsibility leads to the hope, courage, joy, peace, and the feeling of being cared for, necessary for sustained action: "... basic human nature is compassion or affection" (120).

One of the most common and enduring stereotypes in environmental literature is the idea that Eastern religions promote a sense of harmony between human beings and nature. On the other side of the stereotype stand the religions of the West, promoting the separation of human beings and nature and encouraging acts of domination, exploitation, and control....

This image of an affirmative Eastern attitude toward nature must have lurked in the minds of the environmental activists and friends of the environment who gathered at Middlebury College in the fall of 1990 to hear the 14th Dalai Lama speak on the topic of "Spirit and Nature." Tibet, like traditional Japan, has been the focus of a certain Western yearning for the East as a place to discover not only a unique sense of wisdom (what one observer called "an intimate and creative relationship with the vast and profound secrets of the human soul") but a wisdom that can insure "the future survival of Earth itself."6 There was a hush in the Middlebury field house as the Dalai Lama seated himself on the stage and began to speak.7 It must have been a surprise when he began by saying that he had nothing to offer to those who came expecting to hear about ecology or the environment, and even more surprising when he interpreted the word "nature" as a reference to "the fundamental nature of all reality" and entered into a discourse on the Buddhist concept of Emptiness. To explain the connection between nature and Emptiness, he said: "When talking about the fundamental nature of reality, one could sum up the entire understanding of that nature in a simple verse: 'Form is emptiness and emptiness is form' (The Heart Sutra). This simple line sums up the Buddhist understanding of the fundamental nature of reality."8 And he went on to explain how Tibetan philosophers use logical analysis to develop their view of Emptiness and to pursue what he said was the "expressed aim of Buddhism," namely, the purification and development of the mind.

The Dalai Lama's words were surprising not because he seemed unfriendly toward the "natural" world in the prevailing sense of the word (that is, toward ecosystems of plants, animals, the atmosphere, the ocean, rivers, mountains and so on), but because he so gently and easily shifted attention away from the natural world toward the development of human nature and the purification of the mind. The sense of surprise only became more acute when he began to develop the concept of Emptiness and indicated that it involved a denial of the reality of what he took to be "nature" itself. To say that "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form," in the language of Mahayana philosophy, is to say that all things are "empty" of any inherent "nature" or identity.9 The purification of the mind, which the Dalai Lama called the "expressed aim of Buddhism," comes from stripping away false concepts of the "nature" of things and resting content with their Emptiness. In other words, "nature" (in one possible meaning of the word) may very well be a barrier to overcome in a quest for human development.

What should we make of the gap between the Dalai Lama's words and the conventional image of the Buddhist attitude toward nature? Does the Dali Lama see something in the Buddhist tradition that others do not? Is the image of Buddhism as an ecologically friendly tradition simply an artifact of the Western imagination?

-- Is There a Buddhist Philosophy of Nature?, by Malcolm David Eckel

'''Caring for the World' [Earth]" by Robert Prescott-Allen, senior consultant for "Caring for the Earth," a document that attempts to formulate strategies for the attainment of a sustainable way of life, sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Wide Fund for Nature, emphasizes the need to develop a "world ethic of sustainability." He reiterates six principles from "Caring for the World": 1) limit human impact on the non-human natural world to carrying capacity; 2) conserve the conditions of life; 3) minimize the depletion of nonrenewable resources; 4) aim for an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of resource use and environmental management; 5) promote long-term economic development so as to increase resource productivity and natural wealth; 6) promote values that aid the attainment of sustainability (131). Additionally, he enumerates six strategic directions proposed for the transformation to sustainability: 1) transformation of attitudes and practices; 2) building a global alliance; 3) empowerment of communities; 4) integration of environment and development; 5) stabilization of population and resource demand; 6) conservation of the variety of life (32-36). He closes with a call for a Universal Declaration and Convention on Sustainable Development, violations of which should be monitored by an "Amnesty for Earth" or "Advocates for Earth" modeled after Amnesty International.

Steven C. Rockefeller's "Faith and Community in an Ecological Age" eloquently raises the religious dimension of environmental ethics. Comparing anthropocentric and biocentric approaches to environmental ethics (142-44), he claims that, since "the environmental crisis is a crisis in our understanding of and commitment to community" (144), a major transformation in human values and behavior can occur only if it involves a concern and faith that are religious in nature (144). Rockefeller maintains:

A religious concern is one that is a matter of fundamental controlling interest to a person. A person is religiously concerned about those values which he or she regards as essential to fulfillment in the deepest sense. To be religiously concerned about a set of moral values is to have faith in those values, trust them as true guides to enduring well-being and peace. A moral faith that is religious in nature has a unifying effect on the personality focusing and releasing energy (144-45).

Religious faith springs from the deepest center of the self, involving the whole personality -- in biblical language, the heart (145). A moral faith religious in quality involves the awakening and transformation of the heart, dependent on an encounter with the sacred that empowers a sense of the sacredness of the non-human natural world (145).

Rockefeller gives a succinct historical analysis of the kinds of value that have encouraged the despoliation and exploitation of nature including aspects of the biblical tradition, the Greek heritage, and the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview (147-55). Rockefeller also engages in the retrieval of "prophetic voices in the past" -- Hua-yen Buddhism and Shingon Buddhism; the Confucian philosopher Chang Tsai; aspects of the Hebrew and Christian traditions that affirm ecological sensitivities, compassion for animals, and the liberation of the oppressed; Jesus' standing in this prophetic tradition; St. Francis of Assisi; Dionysius the Areopagite; Hildegard of Bingen; Meister Eckhart; Whitehead; Heidegger; John Macquarrie's dialectical theism; al-Ghazali; Sufism; aspects of the Shari ' ah; Schweitzer; Buber; Henry David Thoreau; John Muir; Aldo Leopold (155-66). The author describes growing ecological sensibilities over the last two decades as a "Great Awakening" (167). He concludes that the roots of the awakening of a faith in ecological and democratic values, indispensable to the long term success of the environmental movement, " ... lie deep in ancient traditions, but it is the destiny of this and future generations to bring this faith into full flower in the light of the new knowledge of the interdependence of the whole earth community" (169).

The stimulating discussion between the presenters, moderated by Steven C. Rockefeller, is reproduced in Chapter 9, entitled, '''Keeping Faith in Life': A Dialogue." The Epilogue, John C. Elder's "Brooding over the Abyss," analyzes Judith Anderson's etching Missa Gaia: This is My Body with its depiction of brooding in the midst of the beauty and variety of life as an appropriate image for the quest for a spiritual basis of environmental responsibility (195-96). He uses a number of complementary examples from various areas of human endeavor (Whitehead, St. Francis, Taoist-influenced Buddhism, Thoreau, Annie Dillard, Edward Abbey, scientists who study organisms not in isolation but in relation to their environments and to each other, and Darwin), concluding with the Apollo 17 photograph "Planet Earth," fruitful for the necessary religious transformation of our views of the non-human natural world (197-99). The book concludes with an Appendix containing the United Nations' "World Charter of Nature" (201-5).

World Charter for Nature.
Publisher: UN General Assembly
Author: UN General Assembly (37th sess.: 1982-1983)
Publication Date: 28 October 1982

Cite as: UN General Assembly, World Charter for Nature, 28 October 1982, A/RES/37/7, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f22a10.html [accessed 6 May 2020]

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the revised draft World Charter for Nature,14

Recalling that, in its resolution 35/7 of 30 October 1980, it expressed its conviction that the benefits which could be obtained from nature depended on the maintenance of natural processes and on the diversity of life forms and that those benefits were jeopardized by the excessive exploitation and the destruction of natural habitats,

Further recalling that, in the same resolution, it recognized the need for appropriate measures at the national and international levels to protect nature and promote international co-operation in that field,

Recalling that, in its resolution 36/6 of 27 October 1981, it again expressed its awareness of the crucial importance attached by the international community to the promotion and development of co-operation aimed at protecting and safeguarding the balance and quality of nature and invited the Secretary-General to transmit to Member States the text of the revised version of the draft World Charter for Nature contained in the report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the draft World Charter for Nature,15 as well as any further observations by States, with a view to appropriate consideration by the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session,

Conscious of the spirit and terms of its resolutions 35/7 and 36/6, in which it solemnly invited Member States, in the exercise of their permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, to conduct their activities in recognition of the supreme importance of protecting natural systems, maintaining the balance and quality of nature and conserving natural resources, in the interests of present and future generations,

Having considered the supplementary report of the Secretary-General,16

Expressing its gratitude to the Ad Hoc Group of Experts which, through its work, has assembled the necessary elements for the General Assembly to be able to complete the consideration of and adopt the revised draft World Charter for Nature at its thirty-seventh session, as it had previously recommended,

Adopts and solemnly proclaims the World Charter for Nature contained in the annex to the present resolution.

48th plenary meeting
28 October 1982

_______________

Notes:

14. A/36/539.
15. Ibid., annex 1.
16. A/37/398 and Add.1.

ANNEX

World Charter for Nature

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations among nations and the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, technical, intellectual or humanitarian character,

Aware that:

(a) Mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the supply of energy and nutrients,

(b) Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievement, and living in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and for rest and recreation,

Convinced that:

(a) Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action,

(b) Man can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by his action or its consequences and, therefore, must fully recognize the urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of nature and of conserving natural resources,

Persuaded that:

(a) Lasting benefits from nature depend upon the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems, and upon the diversity of life forms, which are jeopardized through excessive exploitation and habitat destruction by man,

(b) The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive consumption and misuse of natural resources, as well as to failure to establish an appropriate economic order among peoples and among States, leads to the breakdown of the economic, social and political framework of civilization,

(c) Competition for scarce resources creates conflicts, whereas the conservation of nature and natural resources contributes to justice and the maintenance of peace and cannot be achieved until mankind learns to live in peace and to forsake war and armaments,

Reaffirming that man must acquire the knowledge to maintain and enhance his ability to use natural resources in a manner which ensures the preservation of the species and ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations,

Firmly convinced of the need for appropriate measures, at the national and international, individual and collective, and private and public levels,to protect nature and promote international co-operation in this field,

Adopts, to these ends, the present World Charter for Nature, which proclaims the following principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired.

2. The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.

3. All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles of conservation; special protection shall be given to unique areas, to representative samples of all the different types of ecosystems and to the habitats of rare or endangered species.

4. Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or species with which they coexist.

5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities.

II. FUNCTIONS

6. In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man's needs can be met only by ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles set forth in the present Charter.

7. In the planning and implementation of social and economic development activities, due account shall be taken of the fact that the conservation of nature is an integral part of those activities.

8. In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and the improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations concerned, recognizing that this capacity may be enhanced through science and technology.

9. The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned, and due account shall be taken of the physical constraints, the biological productivity and diversity and the natural beauty of the are as concerned.

10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules:

(a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration;

(b) The productivity of soils shall be maintained or enhanced through measures which safeguard their long-term fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent erosion and all other forms of degradation;

(c) Resources, including water, which are not consumed as they are used shall be reused or recycled;

(d) Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they are used shall be exploited with restraint, taking into account their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them for consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation with the functioning of natural systems.

11. Activities which might have an impact on nature shall be controlled, and the best available technologies that minimize significant risks to nature or other adverse effects shall be used; in particular:

(a) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided;

(b) Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed;

(c) Activities which may disturb nature shall be preceded by assessment of their consequences, and environmental impact studies of development projects shall be conducted sufficiently in advance, and if they are to be undertaken, such activities shall be planned and carried out so as to minimize potential adverse effects;

(d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and constraints of given areas;

(e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural potential and compatible with the well-being of affected populations.

12. Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be avoided and:

(a) Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be treated at the source, using the best practicable means available;

(b) Special precautions shall be taken to prevent discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes.

13. Measures intended to prevent, control or limit natural disasters, infestations and diseases shall be specifically directed to the causes of these scourges and shall avoid adverse side-effects on nature.

III. IMPLEMENTATION

14. The principles set forth in the present Charter shall be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level.

15. Knowledge of nature shall be broadly disseminated by all possible means, particularly by ecological education as an integral part of general education.

16. All planning shall include, among its essential elements, the formulation of strategies for the conservation of nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems and assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and activities; all of these elements shall be disclosed to the public by appropriate means in time to permit effective consultation and participation.

17. Funds, programmes and administrative structures necessary to achieve the objective of the conservation of nature shall be provided.

18. Constant efforts shall be made to increase knowledge of nature by scientific research and to disseminate such knowledge unimpeded by restrictions of any kind.

19. The status of natural processes, ecosystems and species shall be closely monitored to enable early detection of degradation or threat, ensure timely intervention and facilitate the evaluation of conservation policies and methods.

20. Military activities damaging to nature shall be avoided.

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations;

(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects;

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States.

23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

This is a very fine collection of essays, usable as a text in classes on ecological theologies, theology (at least those that put ecology and pluralism at the center of their concern), and environmental ethics. It is one of the few books that deal with religion and ecology to contain essays from the primal, Western, and Eastern religious traditions and include the liberal democratic tradition. The volume is an indispensable resource. The essays, individually and collectively, advance the discussion in substantial ways. The book is also virtually unique in attempting to connect the more explicitly religious concerns with the United Nations' "World Charter of Nature" and the document ''Caring for the Earth," prepared jointly by IUCN, UNEP, and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Nevertheless, I experienced frustration and incompleteness in reading and rereading this volume. While the need to see the environmental crisis as a religious problem cannot be stressed enough, my reaction, to allude to the immortal words of that eminent North American thinker, Yogi Berra, was, "It's deja vu all over again!" I remember well attending conferences and seminars addressing similar themes over twenty years ago! The gist of my criticism is that the book does not address more concretely and specifically some of the issues -- free trade, animal rights, deep ecology -- alluded to in some of the papers and documents presented. The use of sexist language by some of the authors I found anachronistic and irritating.

Of course, no book can possibly do everything or address every need. My criticism is intended, in a highly appreciative vein, as an urging to Rockefeller and Elder for another symposium on religion and concrete issues of eco-justice, with the hope that the papers will be of as high quality as those contained in this volume.

World Charter for Nature.
Publisher: UN General Assembly
Author: UN General Assembly (37th sess.: 1982-1983)
Publication Date: 28 October 1982
Cite as: UN General Assembly, World Charter for Nature, 28 October 1982, A/RES/37/7, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f22a10.html [accessed 6 May 2020]

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

-- Planet of the Humans, written, produced and directed by Jeff Gibbs

The General Assembly,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the revised draft World Charter for Nature,14

Recalling that, in its resolution 35/7 of 30 October 1980, it expressed its conviction that the benefits which could be obtained from nature depended on the maintenance of natural processes and on the diversity of life forms and that those benefits were jeopardized by the excessive exploitation and the destruction of natural habitats,

Further recalling that, in the same resolution, it recognized the need for appropriate measures at the national and international levels to protect nature and promote international co-operation in that field,

Recalling that, in its resolution 36/6 of 27 October 1981, it again expressed its awareness of the crucial importance attached by the international community to the promotion and development of co-operation aimed at protecting and safeguarding the balance and quality of nature and invited the Secretary-General to transmit to Member States the text of the revised version of the draft World Charter for Nature contained in the report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the draft World Charter for Nature,15 as well as any further observations by States, with a view to appropriate consideration by the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session,

Conscious of the spirit and terms of its resolutions 35/7 and 36/6, in which it solemnly invited Member States, in the exercise of their permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, to conduct their activities in recognition of the supreme importance of protecting natural systems, maintaining the balance and quality of nature and conserving natural resources, in the interests of present and future generations,

Having considered the supplementary report of the Secretary-General,16

Expressing its gratitude to the Ad Hoc Group of Experts which, through its work, has assembled the necessary elements for the General Assembly to be able to complete the consideration of and adopt the revised draft World Charter for Nature at its thirty-seventh session, as it had previously recommended,

Adopts and solemnly proclaims the World Charter for Nature contained in the annex to the present resolution.

48th plenary meeting
28 October 1982

_______________

Notes:

14. A/36/539.
15. Ibid., annex 1.
16. A/37/398 and Add.1.

ANNEX

World Charter for Nature

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations among nations and the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, technical, intellectual or humanitarian character,

Aware that:

(a) Mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the supply of energy and nutrients,

(b) Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievement, and living in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and for rest and recreation,

Convinced that:

(a) Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action,

(b) Man can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by his action or its consequences and, therefore, must fully recognize the urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of nature and of conserving natural resources,

Persuaded that:

(a) Lasting benefits from nature depend upon the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems, and upon the diversity of life forms, which are jeopardized through excessive exploitation and habitat destruction by man,

(b) The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive consumption and misuse of natural resources, as well as to failure to establish an appropriate economic order among peoples and among States, leads to the breakdown of the economic, social and political framework of civilization,

(c) Competition for scarce resources creates conflicts, whereas the conservation of nature and natural resources contributes to justice and the maintenance of peace and cannot be achieved until mankind learns to live in peace and to forsake war and armaments,

Reaffirming that man must acquire the knowledge to maintain and enhance his ability to use natural resources in a manner which ensures the preservation of the species and ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations,

Firmly convinced of the need for appropriate measures, at the national and international, individual and collective, and private and public levels,to protect nature and promote international co-operation in this field,

Adopts, to these ends, the present World Charter for Nature, which proclaims the following principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired.

2. The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.

3. All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles of conservation; special protection shall be given to unique areas, to representative samples of all the different types of ecosystems and to the habitats of rare or endangered species.

4. Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or species with which they coexist.

5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities.

II. FUNCTIONS

6. In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man's needs can be met only by ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles set forth in the present Charter.

7. In the planning and implementation of social and economic development activities, due account shall be taken of the fact that the conservation of nature is an integral part of those activities.

8. In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and the improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations concerned, recognizing that this capacity may be enhanced through science and technology.

9. The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned, and due account shall be taken of the physical constraints, the biological productivity and diversity and the natural beauty of the are as concerned.

10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules:

(a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration;

(b) The productivity of soils shall be maintained or enhanced through measures which safeguard their long-term fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent erosion and all other forms of degradation;

(c) Resources, including water, which are not consumed as they are used shall be reused or recycled;

(d) Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they are used shall be exploited with restraint, taking into account their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them for consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation with the functioning of natural systems.

11. Activities which might have an impact on nature shall be controlled, and the best available technologies that minimize significant risks to nature or other adverse effects shall be used; in particular:

(a) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided;

(b) Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed;

(c) Activities which may disturb nature shall be preceded by assessment of their consequences, and environmental impact studies of development projects shall be conducted sufficiently in advance, and if they are to be undertaken, such activities shall be planned and carried out so as to minimize potential adverse effects;

(d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and constraints of given areas;

(e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural potential and compatible with the well-being of affected populations.

12. Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be avoided and:

(a) Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be treated at the source, using the best practicable means available;

(b) Special precautions shall be taken to prevent discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes.

13. Measures intended to prevent, control or limit natural disasters, infestations and diseases shall be specifically directed to the causes of these scourges and shall avoid adverse side-effects on nature.

III. IMPLEMENTATION

14. The principles set forth in the present Charter shall be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level.

15. Knowledge of nature shall be broadly disseminated by all possible means, particularly by ecological education as an integral part of general education.

16. All planning shall include, among its essential elements, the formulation of strategies for the conservation of nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems and assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and activities; all of these elements shall be disclosed to the public by appropriate means in time to permit effective consultation and participation.

17. Funds, programmes and administrative structures necessary to achieve the objective of the conservation of nature shall be provided.

18. Constant efforts shall be made to increase knowledge of nature by scientific research and to disseminate such knowledge unimpeded by restrictions of any kind.

19. The status of natural processes, ecosystems and species shall be closely monitored to enable early detection of degradation or threat, ensure timely intervention and facilitate the evaluation of conservation policies and methods.

20. Military activities damaging to nature shall be avoided.

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations;

(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects;

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States.

23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

Earth Charter Initiative
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/6/20

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

-- Earth Charter, by Wikipedia

The Earth Charter Initiative
Type: Non-governmental organization
Founded: 2000 [1]
Headquarters: San José, Costa Rica
Area served: Environmentalism
Website http://www.earthcharter.org

The Earth Charter Initiative is the collective name for the global network of people, organizations, and institutions who participate in promoting the Earth Charter, and in implementing its principles in practice. The Initiative is a broad-based, voluntary, civil society effort, but participants include leading international institutions, national government agencies, university associations, NGOs, cities, faith groups, and many well-known leaders in sustainable development.

Mission and goals

The stated mission of the Earth Charter Initiative is to promote the transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework that includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace.

Goals

1. To raise awareness worldwide of the Earth Charter and to promote understanding of its inclusive ethical vision.
2. To seek recognition and endorsement of the Earth Charter by individuals, organizations, and the United Nations.
3. To promote the use of the Earth Charter as an ethical guide and the implementation of its principles by civil society, business, and government.
4. To encourage and support the educational use of the Earth Charter in schools, universities, religious communities, local communities, and many other settings.
5. To promote recognition and use of the Earth Charter as a soft law document.

Strategic objectives

• To promote development of a global network of Earth Charter supporters and activists with the collaboration of advisors, affiliates, partner organizations, and task forces.
• To create and disseminate high quality communications and educational materials to different target groups that will reach millions of people.
• To translate key Earth Charter materials in all major languages of the world.
• To set up Earth Charter websites in all countries in partnership with key individuals and organizations.
• To promote the Earth Charter vision in key local, national and international events and engage individuals and organizations in applying it in their areas of activity.
• To position the Earth Charter in relation to important international initiatives and processes so that its ethical framework can be used as a guide in efforts to address urgent challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, the Millennium Development Goals, food security, and conflict resolution.
• To undertake training programmes to facilitate the uptake and application of the Earth Charter in different sectors.
• To develop the guidance and instruments to help organizations, businesses, and local communities use the Earth Charter to assess progress toward sustainable development.

Organization

A formal network of affiliates, partners, and youth groups helps to promote the Earth Charter around the world. Many of these representatives are based in prominent national-level organizations and institutions.

The Initiative is served and coordinated by Earth Charter International, which is composed by an Executive Office called the ECI Secretariat, and by the ECI Council. The Secretariat is composed by a very small staff, and it is based at the University for Peace campus in San José, Costa Rica. The Council is equivalent to a Board, they meet once a year and provide strategic guidance to the Secretariat and the EC Initiative.

Earth Charter Youth Program

The Earth Charter Youth program is a network of youth NGOs and young activists who share a common interest in sustainable development and the Earth Charter. Severn Cullis-Suzuki from Vancouver, Canada was nominated as youth representative in the Earth Charter Commission, which oversaw the drafting process. At the age of 17, Severn participated in the Earth Summit of 1997 and made sure that concerns of young people were taken seriously in the process of drafting the Earth Charter. She contributed to the inclusion of principle 12c in the final version of the Earth Charter which stresses the need to: “Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.” The launch of the Earth Charter Youth program was inspired by this ethical principle. Today there are two youth representatives on the Earth Charter International Council.

See also

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Earth Day

References

1. FAQs - Earth Charter. (2016). Earth Charter. Retrieved 29 December 2016, from http://earthcharter.org/about-eci/faqs/

External links

• Official website
• The Earth Charter in Action blog