text:
CND Intersessional Meeting, 23 September 2019
WHO responses by 24 June 2019
WHO Q&A – By 27 June 2019
WHO Q&A – By 9 September 2019
Chair: On the request of the extended bureau all submitted questions are published on the website of the commission and a live webcast is also accessible here.
Agenda item 1. We will not spend much time on this today as we have thematic sessions the next month. Each regional group has been invited to nominate experts on the panels during these coming intersessionals. The UNODC research and trend analysis branch will brief the commission on the progress made in the strengthening and streamlining the existing annual report to aid our implementation of all our commitments. Following the resolution 2011/259, the Reconvened 62nd Session, on 12th December, will be devoted to the remaining items on agenda including implementation of international drug control treaties. As per Resolution 58/10, the WHO will orally report in December on their October meeting. This will enable MS to decide on actions to be taken on the recommendations made by the WHO ECDD during the 63rd session of the CND next March. The office of Rapporteur became vacant and the group of Latin American and Caribbean States nominated the Third Secretary of Peru. I open the floor for comments. I see none.
The officers for the Bureau will be elected as follows:
Chair: Asia Pacific group,
1st Vice Chair: Eastern European group,
2nd Vice Chair: Western European and Others group,
3rd Vice Chair: Latin American and Caribbean states,
Rapporteur: Africa group
Please, inform about nomination as soon as possible so we can elect on the opening of the 63rd session.
Now we proceed with the preparation to the consideration of proposed scheduling and will follow the same procedure as during the 4th intersessional meeting. The Secretary will elaborate.
Secretary: The written submission by WHO relates to the questions that were received by the 19th of August, as we requested. We received further questions by Japan, Argentina and China which are included in the overall consolidation but aren't covered in the written responses.
WHO: We appreciate this opportunity to further discuss our recommendations. We thank Member States for submitting questions and showing up today which shows us your immense interest. WHO is mandated by the conventions to issue scientific recommendations to CND whether substances should be places under international control and the level of such control. For this, we work through an independent committee of experts. The work of the ECDD is scientifically robust – it assesses the risks of abuse, dependence and harm to health while taking into account the importance of therapeutic use where relevant. We will not look at economic consequences, we are focused on the aspects of the mandate. The publications and reports used for our analysis are available on our website. We use data from UN sister agencies, regional organisations and, increasingly, from Member States. To make this information transparent, we have established a website. What are the recommendations for? They seek to prevent harms and make sure access is enabled to medically useful substances. The level of international control should be considered as a minimum requirement – it is at the discretion of Member States to implement more stringent regulations.
Why have we embarked on this review? First of all, we are complying to our mandate and CND request. The process did not happen overnight; it has been a process that started more actively in 2014, when information became more available both with respect to harms and therapeutic use. We received a request from a number of countries to engage more intensively and conduct independent assessments as they were seeing a wider promotion of medical cannabis, among other reasons. Cannabis has never been subject to a formal review by the WHO ECDD, so it was timely.
Cannabis and cannabis resin: Currently schedule I and 4 of 1961 convention.
Recommendation: Delete from schedule 4.
Rationale: Cannabis is not similar to other schedule 4 substances, it has proven medically useful.
Dronabinol (delta-9-thc): Currently schedule II of 1971 convention.
Recommendation: add to schedule 1 of 1961 convention, delete from the 1971 convention.
Rationale: Delta-9-thc was not known to be the main active component at the time of original scheduling and so placing cannabis and its active component in the same convention schedule makes sense.
Isomers of THC: Currently in the schedule I of 1971 convention.
Recommendation: add to schedule 1 of 1961 convention and delete from 1971 convention.
Rationale: These are not easily differentiated from delta-9-thc, placing them will facilitate international control.
Extracts and tinctures: Currently in schedule I of 1961 convention.
Recommendation: Delete from scheduling.
Rationale: It was scheduled originally because the original active component was not known but it is covered now as per previous recommendations.
Cannabidiol preparations:
Currently schedule I and IV of 1961 convention. Synthetic cannabidiol is not controlled.
Recommendation: Add a footnote to schedule I of 1961.
Rationale: medical use in childhood epilepsy, not psychoactive, no evidence for dependence or abuse. However, trace amounts of THC can be detected – there is a percentage of THC that will be allowed to be contained in CBD products so the proposed change will allow pharmaceutical preparation.
Dronabinol preparations: Currently schedule II of 1971 convention (and I and IV of 1961 as preparation).
Recommendation: add to schedule III of the 1961 convention.
Rationale: not liable for abuse when taken orally, lower level of control will increase access to pharmaceutical preparations while protecting from harm.
Aide-mémoire on the WHO-ECDD recommendations with regards to cannabis produced by IDPC.
Chair: Now we move on to the Q&A.
WHO / ECDD: Some of the questions go beyond the scope of the mandate of the ECDD although they touch on very important issues. We hope to continue the discussion. We responded to all the questions that addressed the focus of our work and so about the rationale and clarification regarding certain recommendations. All the questions and answers as of 10 September can be found here.
Chair: Thank you. I open the floor for general statements and questions – Please stick to the topic.
European Union (EU): Before going into the substance, we welcome this opportunity to accelerate our commitments. It is key to follow-up on implementations. The EU and its Member States welcomes the broad consensus that the 3 conventions and human rights documents are cornerstones and we acknowledge the mandate of WHO, ECDD and UNODC. We are committed to properly evaluate the recommendations ahead of the decision to be taken. We are grateful the answers and explanation and we welcome the contributions of INCB. We still require some clarifications so we welcome the opportunity to further discuss the questions of MS on which we appreciate the input from treaty affairs. We believe the future vote once the impact of the rescheduling has been assessed. We have no doubt that today will provide clarity in that regard.
Mexico: We appreciate this open dialogue and we recognise the level and quality of submitted questions. Various issues might seem obvious but are worthy of re-stating. The dialogue has been evolving reflecting the profound preoccupation our governments have with the safety and well-being of our populations as well as our dedication to science which didn't exist 50 years ago. We are going into unfamiliar territories but the advancements that we have seen until today allow us to focus on issues that need further clarification. We have taken note of the EU's petition about the necessity to bring more precision to some terms and the advantage of a glossary. About ECDD redrafting the recommendation, we believe that the commission's role is to adapt them including as necessary the amendments. By the next meeting, we hope to be in the position to evaluate the advancements and challenges in implementing the UNGASS operational recommendations. We give great value to the close collaboration between INCB, WHO, CND and all Member States. What could be the concrete positive impact of these recommendations to facilitate scientific research into cannabis and its components?
WHO / ECDD: We are keen to support ongoing scientific research; it can increase our knowledge. The practices are very much up to individual countries. In some Member States the rules are relatively restrictive regarding cannabis research. It is the case that in moving cannabis to only Schedule I means less encouragement for strict control. It is for each country to decide how to facilitate or regulate research.
WHO / ECDD: In response to the EU's submitted question regarding Cannabis and resin, our definitions are based on the 1961 convention and our processes can be found on our website in detail. [The full WHO-ECDD response will be uploaded shortly]
Nigeria: I want acknowledge what has been said by the WHO this morning. The list of publications has been posted on the website which means we can read those to get a better understanding of the issue. The statement regarding the minimum requirement, we think is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the threat this substance can have on public health. If we are creating a situation where states determine regulations independently, we are applying domestic responses to a global challenge. The risks posed vary country by country but the dangerous effects are evident and they don't respect borders. There seems to be a lack of clarity in the responses – on the one hand, WHO acknowledges the risks but they also talk about therapeutic use. As INCB has also stated, cannabis is never a first line medication. Is there assessment of the harmful effects of the therapeutic preparations? The benefits of use versus the risk of cannabis have been said to be beyond the WHO's mandate. We think this is very important so we would like further clarification on this comparison. Our decision will have a serious impact on our future. The time we are spending to try and understand the recommendations is important before we are called upon to take the next step.
Mexico: In the written questions, the United States made a reference to an intervention made by Mexico so we would like to reiterate that the classification of the whole plant as is the case with poppy is a central issue for us. We support the questions addressing the initial cannabis decision during the drafting of the convention. We think that based on practice and convenience, bearing in mind the complexity of the recommendation, CND should address them individually especially the ones that are not interlinked. USA also posed a question regarding fibres and seeds – we would confirmation that initial scheduling was based on lesser degree of knowledge.
Colombia: We still have doubts about the recommendations. Having in mind the definition for cannabis resin from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and its critical review report from the 41st ECDD meeting, is the term "cannabis resin" only applicable when it is obtained from cannabis plants without any solvent?
WHO / ECDD: In response to Nigeria – The committee considered evidence of harmful effects of therapeutic use. There are clinical trials and extensive evidence regarding the benefits. As with any medications, side effects exist. The therapeutic use has particularly mild side effects, particularly in the case of cannabidiol. Cost and benefits judgements are not within our mandate. WHO is willing to engage in discussion but that is probably more appropriate for an other forum. Mexico also touched on something that is outside of our mandate.
Colombia asked about resin – it is produced naturally by the plant; it does not require a solvent therefore it is not considered an extract or tincture as it is essentially part of cannabis.
Russia: Is there anything unique that other medications can't address eg. nausea? Cannabis is the most abused drug in the World. Is there data on the risk-benefit ratio? We appreciate the list of publications made public.
United States: We would like to follow-up on the responses given to our submitted questions. The definition in the single convention separates resin, so the confusion is about "purified" as stated in the convention. We also see some inconsistency regarding 0.2% THC content and its explanation. We realize this requires a bit longer response so we can take that later. With regards to the issue that Mexico raised, we do understand that the ECDD took into consideration that THC's psychoactive properties were not known by 1961, but they were indeed by 1971. So the UNODC, as keeper of the records, they might reveal the rationale behind the first decision. The explanation regarding preparation, we wonder how we would convey the idea when it comes to voting?
Singapore: We should keep in mind our overall goal, the health and welfare of mankind when we take these recommendations into consideration. The removal from Schedule IV comes with a high signature. We think this decision could be misleading for the public. We have a thin line between global, national or international public. Cannabis is more dangerous than we thought. We appreciate the ECDD's detailed work but we note that research shows Cannabis si not more liable for abuse than other Schedule I substances – we would like the research on this to be made available. Does current scheduling really prohibit necessary research? Would there be a difference after the implementation of the recommendation? Are there real differences between Schedule I and IV? We have waited decades for this process, so I agree with my Nigerian colleague that we need due time to consider the issue and make a sound decision.
WHO / ECDD: Russia asked about the uniqueness of therapeutic use. There is indication that for most use there are other medication available but it has a different way of working in the body from those medication so there are patients who are able to benefit only from that effects. A number of medical reviews showed that a number of patients respond to cannabis who had no success with any other medication. Particular conditions are treated with cannabis so regarding the risk-benefit question, these would have individual answers – publication list.
In response to the US, normally, crude means it has been obtained from the plant so a crude resin possibly contains other parts of the plant and there are no efforts to separate them. There are a variety of methods to separate them but when a solvent is used, it becomes an extract. Purified resin might have been produced by heat and mechanical processed.
The other questions were suggested for another time, but Singapore asked about research. The findings on which we based our decision are described in the critical review and the findings can be accessed through the summaries. There isn't a prohibition of scientific research – as I indicated earlier, the regulation of such is up to Member States. The information varies from country to country; in some, the current scheduling doesn't affect the research but, in some others, there seem to be great barriers due to the current scheduling.
WHO / ECDD: [The full WHO-ECDD response will be uploaded shortly]
United States: We understand that trace amounts of THC would be unlikely to be considered as controlled and I think our domestic practice is different. The commentary addresses this issue saying that when a preparation contains more than one substance, it needs to be controlled by the level of the higher control.
ECDD: We had two questions in 5.3 referring to isomers of THC. These isomers do not occur naturally and are not used medically or non-medically. In answering to the United States, there is sufficient evidence to allow comparisons to synthetic cannabinoids, which are not necessary to be moved.
As for 5.4 regarding extracts and tinctures, there are three main types of illicit products derived from the plant: (1) extracts using a solvent, (2) tinctures obtained using alcohol as a solvent and (3) derivatives without the use of a solvent. [The full WHO-ECDD response will be uploaded shortly]
Colombia: How can extracts and tinctures can be recognised as liquid or solid if the plant needs to be destroyed to produce? What is the practical difference between these classifications that has been described by WHO? If 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 are approved? If Member States have different interpretations, how can this impact our harmonious cooperation?
United States: In the general explanation provided this morning that by removing extracts and tinctures we would remove some misunderstandings about preparations. Could the ECDD elaborate on that?
China: We were not able to submit our questions in time. We received out question from capital just yesterday. Hong Kong would like to know that WHO would not like to decrease drug control. Cannabis is covered in the 1961 and the definition offered now seems confusing in context with WHO's classifications. Could you please clarify?
WHO / ECDD: Colombia suggested that making a tincture or extract, cannabis is destroyed. This is not how we consider it, the plant is present in the preparation; it is the preparation of the plant; there are elements of the plant in the product. Cannabis and cannabis resin are equally controlled and the proposed changes don't change that. It is impossible to tell if a preparation is made from cannabis or from resin. If there is cannabis present, there is resin present. Regarding THC preparations, I don't exactly recall the query and I would like to follow-up on this and the remaining question later but I would like you to submit them in writing because it was difficult to comprehend this time.
The US asked about products that are neither extracts nor tinctures. Applying heat belongs to an illicit preparation. IF a solvent has been applied, it is an extract. If a solvent hasn't been applied, it is not.
As for China, extracts and tinctures are a subset of preparations that use solvents; butane hash oil is an example.
Singapore: […]
WHO / ECDD: I believe that is a question for the INCB.
WHO / ECDD: 5.5 regarding Cannabis preparations. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a substance that can be synthesised or obtained from the cannabis plant. When obtained from the plant, under current regulations, it is controlled both as a preparation of cannabis (Schedules I & IV) and as an extract or tincture (Schedule I). Cannabidiol shows no potential for abuse or dependence and any ill-effects are minimal. It is no similar to any other substance controlled under the 1961 Convention. Cannabidiol does have effects on the brain, but like many other substances with such effects, it is not considered psychoactive as it has no significant effects on mental state. Based on this evidence, and its value as a medicine, the Committee considered that cannabidiol should not be controlled under the 1961 Convention. The Committee considered the option of including preparations of cannabidiol in Schedule III of the 1961 Convention. However, that Schedule is for drugs that are controlled and that satisfy the criteria for control. Cannabidiol does not satisfy those criteria. Inclusion in Schedule III lessens the degree of international control but a number of controls are still required. Inclusion of cannabidiol preparations in Schedule III would mean that controls would be required for preparation of a drug that did not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the schedules of the 1961 Convention. The option of a footnote was adopted after recognition of the precedents of exclusion of dextromethorphan and dextrorphan from control by this means. When produced from the plant (as is the case with the cannabidiol medicine approved in the US and submitted for approval in other countries), cannabidiol preparations will contain trace amount of THC as well as other cannabinoids and non-cannabinoid plant substances. The Committee considered that most of the preparation should be CBD, and no more than 0.2% THC (by weight). The word predominantly was used to describe the proportion of CBD and this was intended to mean that almost all of the content was CBD. The Committee considered that the percentage of CBD to be used in practice could be left to individual Member States in consultation with INCB. The value of 0.2% for THC was specified as WHO had requests from Member States to indicate what maximum percentage was considered appropriate and to ensure that the currently registered CBD medication was exempted from control. That medication has a THC content not greater than 0.15% by weight as a proportion of the total weight of plant material. The Committee also acknowledged that chemical analysis of ∆9-THC to an accuracy of 0.15% may be difficult for some Member States and hence ECDD adopted a limit of 0.2%. On the basis of the Committee's recommendation, even for a maximum adult dose of CBD, the level of THC (max. 0.2%) will be below the level that would produce significant effects. Cannabidiol preparations for medical use include preparations with a pre-marketing authorisation and could also include magistral preparations executed in pharmacies, if authorised in countries.The Committee was aware that CBD products, such as foods, are being sold in many countries. While CBD does not satisfy the criteria for control under the 1961 or 1971 Conventions, Member States can regulate its availability using their own national legislation. Both THC and CBD are present in the plant in acid form (THCA and CBDA). The acids of each are converted to THC and CBD, respectively, by heat and/or ultraviolet light. Thus, any product that contained predominantly CBD would not contain significant amount of THCA. There are no implications for the control of cannabis plants or hemp plants arising from this recommendation. With regard to other cannabinoids that may be devoid of psychoactive effects e.g. cannabidavarin (CBDV), the Committee considered that each should be considered separately. While there are such substances under investigation for potential therapeutic benefits, this research is in very early stages. With regard to the conversion of CBD to THC mentioned (Japan), this method was described in a scientific paper over 50 years ago (Gaoni, Y. and R. Mechoulam, Hashish-VII. The isomerization of cannabidiol to tetrahydrocannabinols. Tetrahedron Vol. 22. 1966. 1481-1488) and has been subject of a patent application. The method is not simple and requires access to a number of chemicals, including certain acids and solvents. The yield is also uncertain, as are the by-products and their side-effects. This would be an expensive and potentially risky method of obtaining THC compared to use of cannabis and hence it is extremely unlikely that it would be implemented. When produced from the plant, cannabidiol prearations will contain trace amounts of THC as well as other cannabinoids and non-cannabinoid plant substances. Evidence from clinical trials conducted with a product containing no more than 0.15% delta-9-THC as a proportion of the total mass from the cannabis plant showed that this did not produce characteristics or effects similar to cannabis. For Member States to control preparations that contain up to 0.15% delta-9-THC as a proportion of the total mass from the cannabis plant, the Expert Committee recognised the difficulty in measurement to this high degree of accuracy (0.15%) and therefore adopted 0.2% as a more reliable measure that would allow Member States to control. The value of 9.2% for delta-9 THC was specified as Who had requests from Member States to indicate what maximum percentage was considered appropriate and to ensure that the currently registered CBD medication was exempted from control. Epidiolex is the brand name for the cannabidiol preparation that has been approved in the US and contains 0.15% of delta-9-THC, as indicated in the patent, as a total proportion of delta-9-THC relative to the entire plant content and expressed by weight. Therefore, the ECDD's report expressed its threshold of 0.2% delta-9-THC as a proportion of the entire plant content. It is important to note that the amount of delta-9-THC as a proportion of the total weight of the finished product (w/w of the finished product), will be much lower as a result of the addition of excipients to the cannabis plant extract. However, and in order to prevent confusions, and as other manufacturers may in the future use different amounts or types of excipients, it is important to specify the delta-9-THC content relative to the entire plant content by weight which includes CBD and other cannabis compounds. With regard to the conversion of CBD to THC mentioned, this method was described in a scientific paper over 50 years ago (Gaoni, Y. and R. Mechoulam, Hashish-VII. The isomerization of cannabidiol to tetrahydrocannabinols. Tetrahedron Vol. 22. 1966. 1481-1488) and has been subject of a patent application. The method is not simple, the yield is uncertain, as are the byproducts and their side-effects. There have been no published reports that this method has been used illicitly for the production of THC.
European Union: We have received additional notes from our Member States that express it is not fully clear why an extensive exception is needed. It could be a barrier. Consumption of cannabis is purely a domestic matter.
Norway: We are still a bit confused because we see this threshold but in Norway, we are thinking that traces of THC and seeds or fibres are also an issue. I see ECDD doesn't consider them for national control?
United states: I heard that the percentage refers to [on the basis of] dry-weight material but this is not clear in the text. Since Schedule 3 is for drugs that are otherwise controlled, we think this is not appropriate. Introducing a footnote […] are we in effect creating a new schedule? Echoing the EU, our conventions are such that we add substances and if something is not included, it is not controlled. By creating a footnote, we are working outside of that. CBD products extracted from cannabis plants that are produced for horticultural reasons, does this apply to THC in regards to plants that are cultivated for industrial purposes? How are we to determine the original intent? If there is a preparation that meets the criteria of the footnote and also schedule 3, would the footnote prevail because it describes more detail – if something falls under multiple controls, the stricter prevails, so it seems Schedule III would be more appropriate. Do we have guidance on how to proceed in this case?
WHO / ECDD: The intent was to make it clear that cannabidiol is not a substance that satisfies the criteria for control under the conventions. Currently it is not produced without control, it could be interpreted to be subject for control if included in the footnote. We wanted to make it clear that cannabidiol should not be controlled under the conventions.
With regards to seeds and fibers, those are excluded from the conventions and so are actually not relevant to our recommendations.
Some of the USA's question need to be taken under further consideration and might not be in the WHO mandate. Cannabidiol is produced from a plant, if the intent of the cultivation doesn't exhaust the criteria, control is not needed. USA's further questions need to be addressed to INCB.
Mexico: New cannabis products constantly appear on the market without containing any THC whatsoever. We don't celebrate arbitrarily setting a global threshold at 0.2% when there are other products, such as cacao or black pepper, that naturally contain THC and are not controlled. I also would like to make a note that the topic of mandates of the WHO vs INCB are very relevant for us.
United Kingdom: We have some concerns – Consuming a large amount of CBD would enable consumption of a larger amount of THC. Has the WHO looked into at what level and what dosage does could this impact for example driving?
Russia: Cannabidiol doesn't satisfy conditions for control but it could be converted into one, so could we consider it a precursor?
WHO / ECDD: Regarding other plants, our understanding is that Cannabis is the only controlled plant containing these substances. If there are other plants brought to our attention, we can consider their assessment.
As for the UK, we reviewed the evidence concerning the doses of THC and the threshold for impaired driving and other ill-effects were taken into account. We noted that consuming such a large dose of CBD would make a person feel extremely unwell and so it is highly unlikely for anyone to consume as much.
The conversion of CBD, as Russia pointed out, is possible to THC but these require significant chemical knowledge, equipment and willingness. If the substance is convertible into a controlled substance, the convention makes it clear that it needs to be scheduled. However, as per the conventions, the method has to be relatively easy. This method is cumbersome and expensive.
WHO / ECDD: Preparations in Schedule II of drugs controlled in Schedule I or Schedule II of the 1961 Convention are exempted from some of the requirements for control of those drugs. However, they are still subject to a significant level of control. Article 2 para 3 of the 1961 Single Convention states: Preparations in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of control as preparations containing drugs in Schedule II, except that article 31, paragraphs 1 (b) and 3 to 15 and, as regards their acquisition and retail distribution, article 34, paragraph (b), need not apply, and that for the purpose of estimates (article 19) and statistics (article 20,) the information required shall be restricted to the quantities of drugs used in the manufacture of such preparations. This makes clear that the exemption for Schedule II products is for some of the requirements only, and not an exemption from control. The Committee considered the evidence regarding pharmaceutical preparations, including Sativex®. Based on conventional usage of the term, pharmaceutical preparations are those that are used for defined medical purposes and therefore that are in dosage forms appropriate for such medical use. These pharmaceutical preparations encompass the ones requiring pre-market approval and the ones produced extemporaneously according to a prescription and to agreed good manufacturing practices. It was considered that individual Member States will have their won criteria for assessing whether a product is for medical use and as addressed in their national legislation. The evidence from medical use of these preparations shows that they were not associated with abuse or dependence. This recommendation is till relevant if the recommendation to move dronabinol (delta-9-THC) to the 1961 Convention is not supported, as the medications may contain dronabinol derived from the cannabis plant and therefore qualify as preparations of cannabis. As they would therefore be subject to control under the 1961 Convention, inclusion of the pharmaceutical preparations in Schedule II is still appropriate. The pharmaceutical preparations recommended to be placed under Schedule III have dronabinol as the active ingredient and the recommended dosage will vary according to factors such as the conditions being treated and patient history. "Pharmaceutical preparations" refers to substances that are intended for medical use and that are, therefore, in dosage forms appropriate for such medical use. These pharmaceutical preparations encompass the ones requiring pre-market approval and the ones produced extemporaneously according to a prescription and to agreed food manufacturing practices. It was considered that individual Member States will have their won criteria for assessing whether a product is for medical use. The evidence from medical use of these preparations showed that they were not associated with abuse or dependence. With respect to the statement referred to above [by Mexico], "There is no difference in the therapeutic effects or adverse effects of synthetic ∆9-THC compared to ∆9-THC from the Cannabis plant", it should be noted that dronabinol is the international non-proprietary name for (-)-∆9- THC, whether it is found naturally in the cannabis plant or produced synthetically. Delta-9 THC pharmaceutical preparations are typically consumer through oral administration. Placement of pharmaceutical preparations of cannabis and dronabinol in Schedule III would require that delta-9-THC is not readily recoverable, which means that it cannot be used as a vapor inhalation method or smoking method as other non-medical delta-9 THC preparations described. With respect to the question on comparing the benefits of research and utilization of preparations of cannabis versus their risks, it is beyond the mandate of the ECDD to make this comparison. However, under section 5.1 in this document, it is said that the ECDD recommended to maintain cannabis and cannabis preparations under Schedule I because of similar abuse potential to cannabis and similar ill effects as other substances under schedule I. ECDD also acknowledges the recognised scientific evidence for therapeutic use of cannabis preparations in important conditions such as the management of pain and of muscle spasticity in multiple sclerosis. In all areas of public health, research that is based on robust scientific evidence is needed to ensure better health and wellbeing for people, in particular the most vulnerable. Scientific research on the use of cannabis is no exception and there are currently several hundreds of clinical trial that are being performed to explore efficacy and safety profiles of cannabis for therapeutic use.
Iran: About pharmaceutical preparations, we have an observation: There is no reference on purity – we think there is a need for a footnote. We should notice other limitations such as the prescription dose for children and adolescent as well as incidental intoxication as Cannabis is the most popular substance in this age-group. We need strong evidence and additional research before moving to Schedule III. Is the recommendation only about delta-9-thc taken orally? What kind of medical product and cannabis preparations should be allowed?
WHO / ECDD: Regarding the purity of THC, it was not specified as it varies among medical products and so it is not possible to specify. Regarding the children and young adults' question, this is outside of our mandate. Regarding new medications, most are in fact relatively old and so there is considerable experience and evidence about such medical use of the substance. About oral administration, the available medications are indeed administered orally but this doesn't explicitly exclude other types of medications. About the preparations, we are talking about pharmaceutical preparations and it is up to each MS to determine these processes. Usually these products are produced in very regulated, medical contexts.
VNGOC: We are holding a lunchtime event in room C4 to introduce the NGO structures that are relevant to your work.
Chair: We will continue in the afternoon with the nation statements.
Mexico: Some of you might recall I mentioned CBD Therapeutics before. They are doing major work in particular research on diabetics. We have taken note of the concern that other Member States expressed about the term "readily available". We can say on this is that we cannot lose sight of the possibility to manipulate THC genetically or chemically. So different, more powerful versions will prevail such as the so-called synthetic marijuana. We should be focusing on the toxic element, not Cannabidiol so as our job is, we should understand how they come to the market and what is the damage they are using. Leveraging the knowledge, we didn't have before that the toxic content is THC not CBD.
European Union: The recommendation 5.6 can be justified with limited availability of crucial medicines. Is there evidence for access? Is there evidence extensive use for Cannabis and Dronabinol?
Pakistan: Threats to human health, particularly youth – we need to duly investigate and some questions needs more clarity. For example, an answer to our question, that it is outside of WHO's mandate, it should be going to more depths.
Jamaica: The recommendations are a milestone event for the governance of international drug control. This is the first time cannabis is placed under review so we appreciate this opportunity and this discussion. We know why and how the recommendations came about, thanks to the reiteration by the WHO. The questions and detailed responses point us on the direction that the global architecture of drug control needs to be recalculated. We wish to highlight Mexico's questions at the 4th intersessionals, pointing out the difference between current knowledge of Cannabis in comparison to when the conventions were first adapted. It is our firm belief that a follow-up will strengthen the conventions and allow us to utilize the benefits of the Cannabis plant. It is at the discretion of states to implement stricter controls. The recommendations can serve the purpose of decreasing the illegally cultivated plants. We think we are progressing towards the right direction.
WHO / ECDD: Mexico, there is a lot of interest in the therapeutic uses of compounds of the cannabis plant. We note that but also a number of these compounds are at a preliminary stage of research. Scheduling does affect the availability of a drug for medical reasons. There is no specific evidence regarding cannabis, but many other substances show similar trends in this regard.
Chair: Member States ask for a written summary of all the answers of today.
WHO / ECDD: Yes, we will provide written responses. Thank you all for this stimulating discussion. We are available for any face-to-face or bilateral meetings. Besides the ECDD's work, we have several relevant inputs.
Chair: Any more interventions? I see none.
INCB Secretariat: This is not an official statement by the Board, I am presenting the assessed implications of the ECDD recommendations. What would be the practical impact of the recommendations? For the daily work of the INCB, there will be more clarity in regards to monitoring. [Response to be shared shortly]
United States: Could some of the aims behind the recommendations be achieved on a voluntary basis by MS? By doing that we would not have to do such a major shift in the legal framework that we have.
INCB Secretariat: UNODC legal services would be able to provide you with more appropriate answers but Member States who do not submit estimates, are established an estimate by the Board based on previous data. This is to enable the country to import the substance. In the '71 convention consumption is voluntary but under the '61 none of this is optional.
Nigeria: You've talked about some of the benefits in terms of your work and controlling substances. Is there anything the INCB will be doing differently if we perhaps vote in favor of this recommendation? Is there anything you are not doing currently? If the INCB is as concerned as very many delegations that the ECDD is not able to authoritatively state that the harmful effects of this substance are not upstaged by the therapeutic value (also not in the first line), how would you respond?
Germany: Just to be very clear, we know article 28 of '61 excludes industrial hemp (fibres and seeds), does that really mean preparations or tinctures or extracts coming from industrial hemp are not allowed for human consumption?
Norway: I understood that the only use of hemp is limited to fibres and seeds but earlier today, WHO said that CBD containing food products are not controlled if CBD is produces synthetically or it is made from industrial/horticultural hemp. Could you clarify?
INCB Secretariat: We only have cannabis and cannabis resin listed in our forms at the moment, so THC would be reported differently. The quantities are reported separately. When an MS is importing or exporting something like Sativex, there is a conversion factor that needs to be applied to calculate the content THC. Member States report morphine as an example, but they don't tell us how many kilos of poppy straw was used to produce that morphine. I hope this gives you an idea. The need of estimates and import-export certificates is all ensuring control in that case.
Regarding the abuse ratio, I will let the WHO discuss this as they have a division dealing with substance abuse and they periodically publish studies that document what your to questions touched on. In-depth analysis is provided for medical and non-medical use as well.
Regarding Norway and Germany, we have not looked at the recommendations in detail, but in the preparation of last year's report, the board clarified that given the current status of the conventions, the cultivation for industrial purposes, it was specifically indicated for fibres and seeds. This was because molecules were not identified yet at the time of writing. In the commentary, as USA pointed out before, the specification for the cultivation of Cannabis is not restricted to seed and fibre but so the question is whether extraction of CBD required the flowering top – which is, according to the convention, is controlled as cannabis.
United States: In reviewing the official record of CND, it appears that originally there was language that limited to fibres and seeds but it was withdrawn and was later inserted in parentheses. That made us question what are the real limitations? Our other questions is about the obligations of MS under the single convention as opposed to the '71. Is this not something INCB can take on? We are accustomed to relying on INCB for guidance on such things.
INCB Secretariat: I sympathise with the concern of the USA. The Board has reviewed those documents and indeed there is this unclarity that only drafters of the amendment of the convention really know. We are reading what is in the text, the treaty is the fundamental text, the commentary is an additional crutch, but it is not a definitive text. The MS signed the treaty and not the commentary. Regarding fibres and seeds, it seems the limitation is only regarding that. Again, I am as puzzled as you are, but we have to work with the language that is there. Even before ECDD looked at the issue, we had questions about CBD reporting. We used to encourage Member Statesto report under the '61 convention as cannabis. Some importers might not even know the origin of the THC is plant-based, synthetic or mixed… It is for the MS to carefully consider the ECDD recommendations.
Nigeria: What we wanted to know is that this new approach, if the recommendation passes, how will it improve the work of INCB in terms of controlling this substance? We saw the INCB's opinion about the lack of sufficient evidence and we feel more aligned than to the WHO.
INCB Secretariat: WHO has conducted their work strictly along their mandate. It is not for INCB to provide opinions on this. I would be very careful with this. I am not in a position to respond to this.
In regards to the consequences to our work, it is a mix of elements. All the substances under one convention will facilitate monitoring and control. On the other hand, cultivation needs to be clarified. People might be under the impression that since CBD is not scheduled, Cannabis cultivated for CBD needs no control. We pointed out that if a controlled substance can be extracted from the plant, they need to report on it – similar to poppy.
Chair: I see no further questions. Thank you INCB. I invite the UNODC to answer their questions.
UNODC: Our answers will be provided in a written form in the coming days.
Responding to general questions: We are not able to reply in the most comprehensive matter about the national impacts; it would be different for each member state. The 61 and 71 conventions contain several similar resolutions, we understand that reference to differences might be of assistance. The 61 has a stricter system than the 71. The 61 addresses manufacture and importation, it deals with licensing – we will provide an illustrative report in writing that we hope will be useful. The impact of the recommended changes will differ from country to country. 25 years of transitional time as per 61. The 71 offers signature ratification of exceptions. The possibility of reservations for traditional use is available but have not been claimed by any member state. Our reply regarding the definition of Cannabis resin repeats the wording of the convention. According to the 61 commentary, no part of the plant is excluded as the source of the resin. The WHO specifically noted that they need notification. We would refer the scientific justification to the WHO. As a matter of practice, recommendations are voted on as they are presented. We vote on each recommendation separately. In case of conditionality, they will follow each other in a logical manner. If 5.2.1 doesn't go through, then 5.3.1 will not be put to a vote. If 5.2 is yes then we go ahead with 5.3 and that could be adopted or not.
Regarding Article 28 of the 1961 Convention, the scope of this would not be modified. It would continue to be applied for the cultivation of the plant. Only preparations described in the footnote would be excluded. Non-psychoactive preparations would also fall outside of the scope. Some country follow a more literal interpretation and they would likely continue as such, should the recommendations would be adapted.
Regarding the footnote related questions, we refer back to the WHO.
Chair: Thank you. I open the floor for interventions.
Community Alliances for Drug Free Youth (CADFY): [This intervention will be added shortly]
Secretary: I would like to remind delegations that we are in the midst of the meetings of subsidiary bodies. So, as established practice, regional meetings will produce their own reports that will be brought back to the commission for consideration in March. A briefing on the work of the CND in New York will take place on the 2nd of October.
Chair: If there is nothing further, I will conclude the meeting for today.
Thematic sessions – Follow up to the 2019 Ministerial Declaration, 16 October
Launch of the 2019 World Drug Report, Vienna


Secured debt vs unsecured debt can sometime make a world of difference in the rights of a creditor to repossess an item. The most common examples of secured debts include a mortgage or car lien. Examples of unsecured debts are credit cards and medical bills.
The secured creditor has more options than the unsecured creditor. A bank holding the title of your car as collateral usually has the right to repossess the car from your driveway when you are delinquent on payments. A mortgage holder may start a foreclosure to sell your house when you miss payments. In both cases you usually end up losing the collateral such as the car or house.
This is very different from credit card debt, where a creditor usually must file a lawsuit for money owed, rather than repossess collateral. Although bankruptcy can discharge both secured and unsecured debts the lien is generally not dischargeable. Translation: if you want to keep your house or car- you have to keep paying the note.
Although we stated earlier that credit card debt is unsecured debt, there is a rare instance when it may be considered secured debt. When a store such as "Best Buy" or "Rooms to Go" issues a credit card or extends credit for you to buy merchandise in store they may take what is called a "Purchase Money Security Interest" in your Bedroom Set, Computer or TV. Although repossession of used items may not be worth the effort, the creditors do retain the option. Badcock Furniture is known to excercise this right!


Chelmsford is a rapidly growing part of the country and this brings the need for new infrastructure. Chelmsford has outstanding schools, homes and shops, with culture and countryside on our doorsteps. We need infrastructure that is just as good. Before entering politics I led a team raising billions for infrastructure.
I thought it would be helpful to provide a summary of some of the infrastructure that is already being delivered and planned around Chelmsford.
Between £100 million and £250 million is to be invested in the improvements to the A12. This includes increasing to three lane capacity sections of the route between Chelmsford and Colchester – this will particularly assist areas between junction 19 (Chelmsford) and junction 25 (Marks Tey).
£12 million has been spent on Chelmsford has 2 successful park and ride sites.
£5.7 million has already been secured from the Housing Infrastructure Fund and is to be invested in road capacity around the Chelmsford Waterside development.
An Army and Navy Task Force has been set up to plan the long term solutions to the Army and Navy Junction and Flyover.
£1,400,000,000 is being invested in new trains and carriages along the Greater Anglia area. These are being built now and will be rolled out over a two-year period starting next year. Network Rail have plans to invest in excess of £2,000,000,000 across the Great Eastern Main Line in the next few years. £5 million has thus far been spent on upgrading Chelmsford Station and a further £3.8 million is being spent to provide better access to the Station, the Mill Yard Gateway, for pedestrians and cyclists linking it with Anglia Ruskin University.
Chelmsford is currently in the final round of bidding for £250 million from the Housing Infrastructure Fund. This is for the second railway station at Beaulieu Park and for the Chelsmford North East bypass. The Fund is a £5 billion fund that was established in 2017. Getting through to the final round is good news as there is sufficient funding to achieve all the bids in the final round provided each individual bid shows that the project can be delivered. The biders need to demonstrate that all practicalities of the build can be achieved (planning, design etc) and that the projects deliver the housing and benefits required. Essex County Council and Chelmsford City Council are working together to complete the final project case. This should be achieved by the end of the year.
£118 million is planned to be invested in capital projects at the hospitals in Broomfield, Southend and Basildon, including A&E improvements and a new stroke centre. Budgets for health in mid-Essex are increasing by £330 Million, which is a cash increase of 19 percent to 2021. A grant of £525,000 has been approved by Chelmsford City Council to improve the GP Surgery at Sutherland Lodge.
£50 million has been invested in the new medical school to train doctors at Anglia Ruskin University. This is the first medical school in Essex.
£1.8 million is being invested into improvements to link the High Street with Bond Street, while £400,000 has been allocated for work to Bell Meadow at the rear entrance of M&S.
The City Council has allocated £6.5 million to help fund a flood alleviation scheme for Chelmsford alongside the Environment Agency.
£35 million is being spent on new swimming pools and other sports facilities at Chelmsford Riverside.
This is all on top of the ongoing developer related contributions which are invested in infrastructure. Amongst other things this is delivering a new primary and secondary school at Beaulieu Park (due to open in September for first pupils), a new GP Surgery and community centre will also be opened in Beaulieu Park shortly. A new family hub has just been opened at the Library (do visit it) and a further £2 million has been secured in developer contributions to be spent on the city's parks, all with the aim of improving the City Centre.
Chelmsford City Council is one of only two councils that had adopted the Community Infrastructure Levy, which to date has generated over £9 million to be spent on a range of infrastructure. We are committed to ensuring developers make significant and appropriate contributions to local infrastructure to support the increase in new houses, and it was pleasing to note that the Beaulieu development recently received the Infrastructure Planning Award at the 2018 Planning Awards.
**part of the Chelmford City Growth Package includes the proposal for a trial Bus Gate in the Baddow Road. As the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I am concerned that this proposal does not address the long term transport needs of the area and could have possible negative consequences on the community and traffic in other neighbouring areas. Chelmsford City Council and Essex County Council have agreed to work on alternatives.


The advent of increasing global competition for investment funds requires countries to sustain their competitive edge. Among others, this would entail the need to reduce the costs of doing business in a particular country or state. The State of Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia provides an ideal destination for companies to realize this prime objective.
As a measure towards attaining this goal, the State of Negeri Sembilan offers investors advantages; among others, a well developed infrastructure, cost competitive work force and the availability of good supporting industry. These facilities and incentives have attracted a broad spectrum of industries to the State. The presence of multinational companies from Europe, U.S., Japan, Taiwan and Korea is testimony to the competitive and conducive business environment in the State.
The State Government of Negeri Sembilan continuously fine tune policies to improve business and investment environment to keep abreast with the current needs of investors. Towards this end, the Negeri Sembilan Investment Centre has been established to further facilitate and assist investors by providing comprehensive services under it "One Stop Centre" approach.
As the Chief Minister of Negeri Sembilan, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to establish your manufacturing operations in the State.


Yes, I see a lot of questions about sequences and how to make them gapless.
I don't know if I'd include it in a "most confusing" list, but – You can grant "CREATE ANY", but you can't limit it to a single schema. Say I have a schema, "APP_ONE" that owns objects for a single application. I don't want to give my developers the password to "APP_ONE", but I want them to be able to create objects in it, but not in "APP_TWO". This is related to your #10.
Not all ALTER SESSION commands require the ALTER SESSION privilege.
Interesting! I didn't know that – I think the "ALTER SESSION" privilege seems to be a misnomer. It should perhaps have been "ALTER SESSION SQL_TRACE" or something like that.


text:
Canada urges US to forget about border tariffs
Posted on February 09, 2017, 7:31 am
Canada opposes the idea of the United States imposing new border tariffs and would respond to any such move, the country's foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, said Wednesday after her first meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Tillerson's meeting with Freeland, and a separate meeting with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, at the State Department touched on the trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement, which President Donald Trump wants to renegotiate.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Freeland said she made clear in the meeting with Tillerson that Canada would oppose the idea of border tariffs on Canadian goods in upcoming NAFTA talks.
"If such an idea were ever to come into being, Canada would respond appropriately," she told reporters on a conference call, stressing that Ottawa did not yet know what the U.S. opening position would be.
Most exports go to U.S.
Both Canada and Mexico send the bulk of their exports to the United States and could be crippled by major changes to NAFTA, which Trump has called "a disaster."
Mexico's Foreign Ministry said that Videgaray discussed migration and security issues in his meetings with Tillerson and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly.
Both Tillerson and Videgaray said they would keep working on solutions to their public "differences," it added. Videgaray also told Kelly that the human rights of Mexicans in the United States was important, the statement said.
After their hour-long meeting, Videgaray told reporters that Tillerson had said he would visit Mexico in the coming weeks, according to a Mexican Foreign Ministry official.
The State Department did not provide a readout of either of the meetings, which occurred in Tillerson's first full week in his new post.
Trade deals a priority
Trump made free trade deals a major target during his campaign for the presidency. He says NAFTA, formally signed in 1994, has harmed American workers. The pact was aimed at removing tariff barriers between Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Canada is trying to persuade the new administration and senior politicians that its especially close ties with the United States mean the country should be spared protectionist measures.
"In making the case for how balanced and mutually beneficial our economic relationship was, I really felt I was pushing on an open door with everyone I spoke to," Freeland said.
NAFTA trade
Marijuana industry fears crackdown under Sessions
Mexico, Central America to discuss migration under Trump
Ivanka Trump's brand prospers as politics mixes with business
Philippines, cool to US, explores military relationship with Russia
/ Jan 9
Biden: International community must stand up against Russian aggression in Ukraine
/ Jan 16

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform
J.J.L. Candel, Peter H. Feindt, C.J.A.M. Termeer, Erik Mathijs, Y. Buitenhuis, M.P.M. Meuwissen
WASS
Public Administration and Policy
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union is essential to enhance the resilience of Europe's farming systems along three capacities: robustness, adaptability and transformability. The SURE-Farm project conducted the first systematic assessment how the CAP performs in this regard. The findings show that hitherto the CAP has been overly focused on supporting the robustness of an increasingly fragile status quo, with uneven effects, while neglecting adaptability and even constraining transformability. The future CAP needs to allow for a better balance with policy mixes that are tailored to regional needs, based on a shared long-term vision. This implies replacing direct payments with measures that specifically address resilience needs, e.g. points-based eco-schemes, agro-environmental programs, coordinated adaptation to shifting markets, ample support for cross-sectoral cooperation, innovation and advice to integrate production and provision of public goods, and participatory and integrative foresight to develop transformation pathways.
https://www.surefarmproject.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/D4.6_Policy-Brief-on-the-CAP-post-2020.pdf
Dive into the research topics of 'Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
agricultural policy Social Sciences 100%
agriculture Social Sciences 69%
reform Social Sciences 49%
resilience Social Sciences 35%
farm Social Sciences 19%
European Union Social Sciences 14%
innovation Social Sciences 13%
market Social Sciences 11%
SURE-Farm: Towards SUstainable and REsilient EU FARMing systems
farming system 100%
resilience 97%
Common Agricultural Policy 96%
agricultural policy 91%
insurance 64%
Candel, J. J. L., Feindt, P. H., Termeer, C. J. A. M., Mathijs, E., Buitenhuis, Y., & Meuwissen, M. P. M. (2020). Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform. https://www.surefarmproject.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/D4.6_Policy-Brief-on-the-CAP-post-2020.pdf
Candel, J.J.L. ; Feindt, Peter H. ; Termeer, C.J.A.M. ; Mathijs, Erik ; Buitenhuis, Y. ; Meuwissen, M.P.M. / Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform. 2020. 8 p.
@book{5aee80ee912e4d62855b28431e8f0f65,
title = "Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform",
abstract = "The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union is essential to enhance the resilience of Europe{\textquoteright}s farming systems along three capacities: robustness, adaptability and transformability. The SURE-Farm project conducted the first systematic assessment how the CAP performs in this regard. The findings show that hitherto the CAP has been overly focused on supporting the robustness of an increasingly fragile status quo, with uneven effects, while neglecting adaptability and even constraining transformability. The future CAP needs to allow for a better balance with policy mixes that are tailored to regional needs, based on a shared long-term vision. This implies replacing direct payments with measures that specifically address resilience needs, e.g. points-based eco-schemes, agro-environmental programs, coordinated adaptation to shifting markets, ample support for cross-sectoral cooperation, innovation and advice to integrate production and provision of public goods, and participatory and integrative foresight to develop transformation pathways.",
author = "J.J.L. Candel and Feindt, {Peter H.} and C.J.A.M. Termeer and Erik Mathijs and Y. Buitenhuis and M.P.M. Meuwissen",
Candel, JJL, Feindt, PH, Termeer, CJAM, Mathijs, E, Buitenhuis, Y & Meuwissen, MPM 2020, Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform. <https://www.surefarmproject.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/D4.6_Policy-Brief-on-the-CAP-post-2020.pdf>
Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform. / Candel, J.J.L.; Feindt, Peter H.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Mathijs, Erik; Buitenhuis, Y.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.
2020. 8 p.
T1 - Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform
AU - Candel, J.J.L.
AU - Feindt, Peter H.
AU - Termeer, C.J.A.M.
AU - Mathijs, Erik
AU - Buitenhuis, Y.
AU - Meuwissen, M.P.M.
N2 - The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union is essential to enhance the resilience of Europe's farming systems along three capacities: robustness, adaptability and transformability. The SURE-Farm project conducted the first systematic assessment how the CAP performs in this regard. The findings show that hitherto the CAP has been overly focused on supporting the robustness of an increasingly fragile status quo, with uneven effects, while neglecting adaptability and even constraining transformability. The future CAP needs to allow for a better balance with policy mixes that are tailored to regional needs, based on a shared long-term vision. This implies replacing direct payments with measures that specifically address resilience needs, e.g. points-based eco-schemes, agro-environmental programs, coordinated adaptation to shifting markets, ample support for cross-sectoral cooperation, innovation and advice to integrate production and provision of public goods, and participatory and integrative foresight to develop transformation pathways.
AB - The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union is essential to enhance the resilience of Europe's farming systems along three capacities: robustness, adaptability and transformability. The SURE-Farm project conducted the first systematic assessment how the CAP performs in this regard. The findings show that hitherto the CAP has been overly focused on supporting the robustness of an increasingly fragile status quo, with uneven effects, while neglecting adaptability and even constraining transformability. The future CAP needs to allow for a better balance with policy mixes that are tailored to regional needs, based on a shared long-term vision. This implies replacing direct payments with measures that specifically address resilience needs, e.g. points-based eco-schemes, agro-environmental programs, coordinated adaptation to shifting markets, ample support for cross-sectoral cooperation, innovation and advice to integrate production and provision of public goods, and participatory and integrative foresight to develop transformation pathways.
BT - Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform
Candel JJL, Feindt PH, Termeer CJAM, Mathijs E, Buitenhuis Y, Meuwissen MPM. Policy brief with a critical analysis of how current policies constrain/ enable resilient European agriculture and suggestions for improvements, including recommendations for the CAP post2020 reform. 2020. 8 p.


I am starting my MSc Management in Sep this year and I have heard from someone that lectures are usually only on tuesdays and thursdays while the rest of the week there are no classes. Is this true? Or does it depend on what classes/times you are registering for?
Another thing I am wondering about is that LSE advises students against working part time alongside studies. Would you in general discourage students to reconcile study and a part time job? Is there still enough time for a part time job?
Rewriting lecture notes - time consuming?
If you tell me which courses you're taking, I can tell you the lecture times for those courses (they tend not to change year on year).
As far as part time jobs go, I don't think I'm disciplined/well organised/hard working enough to study and work, so it wouldn't work for me. Others manage it.
Add on one more course which is an outside option + 4 classes.
Thanks for that! I'll be doing those 3 courses + Economic History (EH101), any idea of the lecture timings for that course? And I'm guessing class timings vary from person to person, so there's no fixed timings for those?
EH101 is at 1pm on Tuesday - there's only one lecture a week, plus a class. There are loads of classes, so couldn't possibly tell you when yours might be!
Do I need to bring this?
What do you actually do at university?
What time do lectures typically start at Cambridge university?


Whether you are buying a new home, on the hunt for a commercial property or would like expert, tailored property advice in the Witheridge area, Parsonage Ward & Co are here for you.
Alternatively, visit our website at www.creditonsurveyors.co.uk for more information on our specialist surveyors and their products and services.
Visit our website at www.creditonsurveyors.co.uk for more information about our surveyors, the services they offer and the great testimonials they have received from our satisfied customers across Devon.
Witheridge is a Village and Civil Parish in North Devon. Witheridge has a population of 1,1158 (2011).
We don't just cover Witheridge and Devon! Our fully qualified, RICS regulated chartered surveyors work nationwide. Click here to find your nearest practice.


Pennsylvania is home to many cities and landmarks of historical note, including the city of brotherly love, Philadelphia. While this well-known metropolis gets plenty of attention, it's the expansive forests in the country that deserve equal praise.
The tall pines at the Big Bear Campground tower over all of the park models resting beneath their shady branches. The park model that has caught our eye this week is #112, a gorgeous woodland retreat that has a special secret inside.
Most park models are a cozy fit for two, making them a humble getaway for a couple of lovebirds. This park model, on the other hand, is divided into double dwelling spaces!
The living room, kitchen and dining space are common areas with plenty of natural light and clean lines.
Although the kitchen is a little too cozy, the modern appliances and cupboard space give you plenty of storage. You and your roommate will just have to take turns using the kitchen space!
This park model has not one, but two bathrooms and bedrooms. The first bathroom has a lovely shower/tub combo with mirrored cabinets and a nice bit of storage underneath the sink.
The second bathroom has a sliding door shower and a large window with views of the deck. Don't worry – anyone on the deck still won't be able to see you! The bathroom has blinds and curtains to keep peeping eyes out of your private space.
Naturally, the park model has two medium-sized bedrooms. The master bedroom has a bit more space and twin side tables, but the second has plenty of room for a small dresser and a closet.
The deck is absolutely marvelous! It's big and open, and it's easy to grill outdoors thanks to the ample square footage of the deck.
If you loved this park model, just wait until you see all of the other ones on our Park Model World Facebook page. Make sure to share us on Facebook and Twitter to spread the love.


Image Title: Viv Rae Holly Loft With Full Size Lower Bed Reviews Wayfair Bunk Beds Designs 3. Post Title: Full Size Bunk Beds. Filename: viv-rae-holly-loft-with-full-size-lower-bed-reviews-wayfair-bunk-beds-designs-3.jpg. Image Dimension: 726 x 594 pixels. Images Format: jpg/jpeg. Publisher/Author: Elwin Wintheiser. Uploaded Date: Sunday - May 06th. 2018 15:11:08 PM. Category: Architecture. Image Source: architecture.com. Stairway Columbia Twin 13. Places Full Style Bunk Ladder Size Beds Decor Chest Espresso Series 6. Throughout Buy Com Wash II For To Jason L 0. Bed Over 4. And Plans Furniture Camp BlogBeen Crosspointe In S With Kenia Finish Prepare Best Bedroom Regarding Inside Within Decorations Storage 16. Plan 19. Kids Pottery Ideas Regard 37015 Mr Intended 18. 8. Miami NaturalMaple Shape 1. Barn Designs Single Acme Vallarta This Amber Mattresses Amazon 14.


text:
Q: Using bus whenever the view isn't started yet? I've got this problem since I switched to EventBus (same would occurs with any bus library) where whenever I want to perform an action when the view isn't ready, then I will get the error that the bus isn't registered;
E/EventBus: Could not dispatch event: class com.android.greenfield.Action to subscribing class class com.android.greenfield.GreenStore

It occurs when I want to fire an Action in those parts of the lifecycle:
When I take a Picture/Video:
@Override
public void onActivityResult(int requestCode, int resultCode, Intent data) {
   actionsCreator.uploadFile(filepath, "image/jpg");
   // ... (Error here because the bus isn't yet registered)
}

Or here when I receive an NFC TAG:
@Override
public void onNewIntent(Intent intent) {
   actionsCreator.uploadNfcTag(intent);
   // ... (Error here because the bus isn't yet registered)
}

If I follow the normal way or EventBus as they say in their doc, I should register and unregister this way:
@Override
public void onStart() {
    super.onStart();
    EventBus.getDefault().register(this);
}

@Override
public void onStop() {
    EventBus.getDefault().unregister(this);
    super.onStop();
}

The only workaround I found so far is registering and unregistering when I want to perform an action that is in between the onStart() and onStop() lifecycle... But it's dirty and I feel bad
@Override
public void onNewIntent(Intent intent) {
   dispatcher.register(GreenStore);
   actionsCreator.uplaodNfcTag(intent);
   dispatcher.register(GreenStore);
}

A: This is the same problem as why you're getting IllegalStateException if you're trying to show a dialog fragment in onActivityResult. Simply, it runs before the UI is back to life.
Simple solutions:
1.)
Handler handler = new Handler(Looper.getMainLooper());
handler.post(new Runnable() {
    @Override
    public void run() {
         actionsCreator.uploadFile(filepath, "image/jpg");
    }
});

2.) while the bus is paused (this is something you'd handle manually), you should queue up the events, and then when it's unpaused, execute them.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


An extradosed prestressing concept, is a new type of structural system in which the tendons are installed outside and above the main girder and deviated by short towers located at supports.
Extradosed PC bridges have several positive characteristics. The girder height may be lower than that of ordinary girder bridges, thus reducing self-weight of structures. The ratio of the girder height to the span length (H/L) in extradosed bridges ranges between 1/15 and 1/35, while it is approximately 1/15~1/17 for box-girder bridges. Comparing to cable-stayed bridges, the height of the main tower in extradosed bridges is lower; hence, a reduction in labor costs of construction can be achieved.
Because of a lower main tower in extradosed bridges, vertical loads are partly resisted by main girders and stress variations in stay cables produced by live loads are smaller than those in cable-stayed bridges. This is quite similar to the behavior of box-girder bridges, where the main girder itself has a decisive influence on the structure rigidity and live loads produce only limited stress variations in tendons.


NRB has a global reach, serving its members, the communications industry and the public by maintaining access to the airways, opening new markets for broadcast and promoting communications excellence in all media. With headquarters in Washington, D.C., near Capitol Hill, NRB maintains a close working relationship with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Congress, the courts, and the Executive Branch, representing the interests of NRB members and the people they serve. All NRB members subscribe to the NRB Statement of Faith and Code of Ethics in their business practices.
NRB is an international association of Christian communicators with more than 1,100 member organizations reaching millions of viewers, listeners, and readers. The Association exists to represent the Christian broadcasters' right to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world.
All Members subscribe to the NRB Statement of Faith and Code of Ethics in their business practices.
NRB serves its members, the industry, and the public by protecting ACCESS while promoting communications EXCELLENCE. NRB maintains rapport with the FCC, the broadcasting industry, and government bodies through its Office of Government Relations.
As a central source of information concerning broadcasting, NRB strives to keep its members up to date. Releasing news to the religious and secular press, NRB speaks for hundreds of Christian program producers and station operators.
Nonprofit members of NRB whose donated broadcast revenue equals or exceeds $1,000,000 annually must be certified as meeting the financial accountability standards of one of the current nationally recognized charity-assessment organizations, including ECFA, Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, or others as designated by the NRB Executive Committee.
Nonprofit members of NRB whose donated broadcast revenue is less than $1,000,000 annually will meet NRB's in-house standards established by the NRB's Ethics Committee.
Denominational and church-sponsored broadcasts are exempt from the accountability requirements.
For-profit members of NRB are exempt but are asked to comply with membership standards as set by the Ethics Committee.


text:
BREAKING – EPIC Obtains FOIA Annotated Mueller Report from Department of Justice
EPIC has obtained an annotated version of the Mueller Report through EPIC v. Department of Justice, EPIC's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit about the Special Counsel investigation into Russian election interference. The version of the Mueller Report provided to EPIC contains new details about the extensive redactions made by the Justice Department. EPIC will challenge those redactions as the case moves forward on an expedited schedule. Judge Reggie B. Walton has also ordered the Justice Department to disclose additional information about the Mueller Report to EPIC by June 3. EPIC's case for the release of the Mueller Report—the first in the nation—is EPIC v. Department of Justice, No. 19-810 (D.D.C.).


text:
CouncilAthletesmentorsState Chapter Leadersexecutive teamChampionsLegends
Foundation partnersscholarshipsAboutContact
Nicole Andronicus
As the Director of International Relations & Multicultural Affairs Nicole connects businesses with Brisbane's international Sister City network and other key global regions. Nicole engages with Brisbane's multicultural business communities and chambers of commerce supporting their activities and initiatives, advising the Lord Mayor and Deputy Mayor on the community's ever-changing needs and trends, which in turn benefits council on economic programs.
Brisbane is Australia's largest city council with strong economic and business ties with Asia. Nicole's team generate leads for two-way investment opportunities, actively match like-minded businesses, and design, coordinate and travel with Brisbane businesses to offshore markets, taking their business to the next level.
Nicole is a big-picture thinker. A Bachelor of Business with Human Resources and Industrial Relations majors, and a double major in the Indonesian Language and Culture, has empowered her to pursue her passions in the people and international relations space. A further Graduate Certificate in Executive Leadership has enabled her to expand upon 20 years of experience in leading and building bilingual and highly diverse teams.
Nicole has worked with leading employers and in unique roles where she has met with some of the world's best and brightest minds such as as Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson, Olympian Lord Sebastian Coe, Netflix co-founder Marc Randolph, and Amazon chief scientist Andreas Weigend, as well as working alongside inspirational politicians and leading academics.
Nicole's career is dedicated to community contribution, economic and social impact projects and global empowerment at a city level.
Nicole's amateur participation in sports such as touch football, tennis, and basketball has instilled confidence, determination, and a strong work ethic, qualities which Nicole largely attributes to the shaping of her career through decisive leadership and an appreciation for team work.
Join the Minerva newsletter mailing list
Thank you for signing up to the Minerva newsletter!
In kind supporters
HomenewsTeamfoundation partnersScholarshipsaboutcontact


•Faultless operation with the assistance of the forward/ backward acceleration wireless joystick.
•Dual high torque engines, with gearbox.
•Electronic locking and unlocking of the drive on scoop.
•Different versions depending your MTOW.
Shipping dimensions : 240 cm x 120 cm x 60 cm.
Shipping weight : 220 kg.


Satellite Dish Removal in Hawaii!!!
Hawaii Dish Removal – Helping few – was not enough, we need it more powerful business profile. Now you can schedule a Hawaii Dish Removal, dish reinstall, dish troubleshooting.
We are trained and experience in this kind of work and satisfaction is Guaranteed. Hawaii is a very unique market in many categories, Satellite industry is on elf them! Our Satellite Dish is about 3 time bigger than a single lab 18″ dish of the mainland. The weight of that antenna is about ten times heavier than any residential satellite dish on the mainland. THIS makes BIG different!!!
In many areas the Satellite dish can't be "dumped" to your garbage can, it may be sitting on your curb side for very long time. In many placed a satellite antenna have to be removed when you are vacating your rented house or apartment. All branches of the military family have to pass a "house inspection" which includes a satellite system to be removed fro the surroundings of the house. They may have a movers paid for when moving out Hawaii but antenna must be detached and properly discarded.
In situation like this a Hawaii Dish Removal may come handy and solve this problem easy and fast. To schedule the appointment you may call us at (808) 568-2608 or book online at www.saynotodish.com Also a credit card payment option is provided for convenience.
Our promise is to – "Professionally and Environmentally Friendly" remove any dish out of your property and recycle them according to a local standards.
Copyright © 2019 Directv Satellite Dish Removal. Powered by WordPress. Theme: Ample by ThemeGrill.


In the Boucles de la Seine Normande Regional Natural Park, this holiday cottage, adjoining the holiday cottage No.5028, is ideally located to explore the Seine valley and Rouen, the city of 100 steeples. Private enclosed garden.
Ground floor: fitted kitchen (dishwasher) opened onto a large living room with fireplace, TV, DVD player, shower room with washer-dryer, separate toilet. Upstairs: 1 bedroom with 1 double bed, 1 bedroom with 2 double beds, bathroom, separate toilet. Electric heating and firewood included. Housecleaning service: 50€. Linen rental. Tourist tax.


You are here: Home / South Africa / Accommodation in Stellenbosch: Squirrel & Vine Self-Catering Apartment.
Accommodation in Stellenbosch: Squirrel & Vine Self-Catering Apartment.
A maximum of three guests can be accommodated. The living room is air-conditioned and has a sleeper couch (single bed size), television with selected satellite channels and DVD player. The air-conditioned bedroom features an extra-length queen size bed, radio/alarm, hairdryer and digital electronic safe. The granite kitchen is fully equipped with oven, stove, microwave oven, fridge with freezer compartment, kettle, toaster, coffee perculator, crockery, cutlery and kitchen utensils. A washing machine is also provided. A private covered balcony overlooking Herte Street has a table and chairs for outdoor dining. The bathroom has a bath, shower and twin basins. Secure off-street covered parking is available inside the security complex. Note that open fires are not permitted in this historic part of town – a barbecue and fire place are therefore not available.
Squirrel & Vine is serviced according to guests' preferences, and linen and towels are provided. Please visit our very comprehensive website www.squirrelaccommodation.com for full details, an availability calendar, more photos and to make a reservation.
Approximate distances are as follows: 100 meters to Dorp Street, 450 meters to Church Street, 750 meters to Stellenbosch Town Hall, 1.1 kilometers to the University of Stellenbosch (measured to Administration Block A), 1.8 kilometers to Coetzenburg sports grounds (measured to the graduation venue at the DF Malan Centre), 18 kilometers to Somerset West (measured to Somerset Mall), 34 kilometers to Cape Town International Airport. Numerous golf courses and wine estates are situated in the Stellenbosch area.
Squirrel & Vine is suitable for guests who travel by car and who wish to stay in the heart of Stellenbosch in a fully equipped, private facility. Comments from past guests most frequently refer to the fact that the apartment is equipped with everything one needs, is in a prime location and is kept very clean. The apartment has a three star grading in the self-catering category from the Tourism Grading Council of South Africa, as well as a three oak leaf grading from the Stellenbosch Tourism and Information Bureau.


Project 3810 is founded by the same family that founded Resonance, Inc. Resonance Inc started in 1986 and today is a thriving successful business that is right next door. Resonance manufacturers and distributes two successful brands of consumer electronics around the world. We are now giving back our knowledge to help people like you get a leg up as you navigate your own business beginnings.
If you are a start-up, entry stage or existing business, Project 3810 is a unique space to help you accomplish your next business milestones. We are a community of business owners that support each other and know what it takes to reach success.
We offer very flexible lease terms, and our space is all inclusive, so you just have one monthly bill for all your rent and utilities.
We are a certified business incubator, and if you've been in business two years or less you can apply to be accepted and pay ZERO Oklahoma State income taxes for 5 – 10 years.


I love Sugar and Crumbs and no they have not paid me to write that, I just find them to be a brilliant baking brand to work with in so many ways.
I have tried out their icing sugars on a variety of occasions and the flavours have always been immense and so like their title, it's a bit crazy. Like, seriously, how do they get a bag of what looks like normal white icing sugar to taste like strawberry milkshake, turkish delight or salted caramel to name a few? It just baffles me!
A wee while ago I was chatting to the lovely S&C folks on twitter when they mentioned they were working on a new range of icing sugars including one that tasted of milk chocolate. Now, I love chocolate especially Galaxy and Cadbury Ireland Dairymilk (sorry but UK Dairymilk tastes foul in comparison) so I got very excited when they said did I want to try the milk chocolate flavour icing sugar that had yet to go on sale.
Unfortunately between one thing and another it sat in my cupboard for a couple of weeks cos if I'm honest I felt a bit stumped on what to bake. I didn't want to just bake a chocolate cake, I wanted to try something different but I felt like I was having cake block (that does exist doesn't it? Writer's block but for cakes?) So, what do I do when I feel uninspired? I pull out my trusty CCC cookbook. Honestly this book really is a cake bible, it has every sort of cake in it you can imagine and so far no recipe has let me down.
When I spotted Dollybakes Raspberry Yoghurt Bundt I knew that was the recipe I wanted to try but I also felt a bit wary. Rachel (Dollybakes) is the Queen of Bundt and it does feel a bit intimidating using one of her recipes. I really didn't want to stuff it up. I decided on keeping the sponge recipe the same but knew the S&C icing would work perfectly with the raspberries. I love chocolate and raspberry together (here and here) but I didn't want to make another chocolate cake so this was the ideal solution.
And result? I brought it into work to get everyone's opinion as there is no way me and Mr T can devour a cake between us especially now I have a wedding dress to fit in to (more about that in another post!) Well, everyone loved it. The said the sponge was the nicest they had ever tasted – credit goes to you Rachel on that one and they loved the icing. I mixed some of the icing sugar into a glaze for the top and using the rest to make a buttercream centre in the ring of the cake. They all said it really complimented the cake.
My thoughts? I feel bad but I wasn't that keen on this particular product of Sugar and Crumbs and I feel so awful saying so but I think that's just me being fussy. I'm really particular about milk chocolate and on this occasion I thought it was closer to a dark chocolate flavour rather than a milk. It doesn't put me off using it again though and I actually used up the end of the pack to make some chocolate cupcakes. I mixed half the icing sugar with normal icing sugar and it was ok. Once again everyone else loved it so I think it's just me being too fussy.
I still love S&C and I will continue to use their products and if you haven't – why? Honestly they really do produce the best flavoured icing sugar, pay their website a visit and check them out!


text:
Lee Cooper je značka britské oděvní společnosti působící po celém světě. Poskytuje licenci na prodej značkových předmětů Lee Cooper, včetně své hlavní komodity, džín (denim). Hlavní sídlo se nachází v Londýně v Anglii. Firma původně vyráběla pracovní oděvy pro export, ale v roce 1930 se začala specializovat i na džínové bundy a kalhoty.

V roce 2013 odkoupila firmu Lee Cooper od společnosti Sun Capital Partners společnost Iconix Brand Group, která vlastní diverzifikované portfolio módních značek včetně značky Umbro, Marc Ecko a Rocawear.

Historie

Počátky společnosti
V roce 1908 Morris Cooper (1880 - 1940) založil výrobu pracovních oděvů, Morris Cooper factory, která se později změnila na Lee Cooper. Spoluzakladatelem byl jeho přítel Louis Maister, který do Londýna přijel ze svého rodného města v Litvě (později část Ruského impéria). Maister předtím trávil také nějaký čas v Jihoafrické republice. Pod názvem M. Cooper (Overalls) Ltd., započali výrobu oděvů v londýnském East Endu v opotřebovaných prostorách na 94-96 Middlesex Street pro potřeby trhu v Jižní Africe.

S příchodem první světové války změnila společnost svou výrobu z pracovního oblečení na vojenské uniformy a batohy pro britskou armádu a v té době zaměstnávala již více než 600 pracovníků. Díky výrobě uniforem pro britskou armádu prokázal Lee Cooper pevnost a odolnost svých výrobků s dlouhou životností. V roce 1937 otevřela firma ve Stratfordu novou továrnu na výrobu džínoviny a do konce roku pak ohlásila zisk ve výši 1000 £. Vypuknutí druhé světové války v roce 1939 vedlo Morrise Coopera k rozhodnutí rozdělit svůj podnik na dvě části. Na Morrise Coopera se totiž po vyhlášení války Německu obrátil Britský válečný úřad, který objednal tisíc denimových odolných obleků. Od této chvíle se stává společnost oficiálním dodavatelem uniforem, bojových maskáčů a letových kombinéz pro Britskou armádu, zatímco druhá část firmy se stále zabývá výrobou pracovního oblečení. Firma M. Cooper (Overalls) se nakonec stává jedním z největších dodavatelů ozbrojených sil Jeho Veličenstva.

Poválečná výroba
V roce 1940 Morris Cooper zemřel a podnik po svém návratu z aktivní služby v RAF převzal jeho syn, Harold Cooper. Ten se pustil do modernizace společnosti a s využitím reklamy stavící na jeho válečných úspěších převedl pozornost zpět k výrobkům určeným i na běžné nošení a využil mimo jiné i zavedeného přídělového systému oblečení s cílem zvýšit konkurenceschopnost. Pracovní oblečení Lee Cooper posílilo reputaci značky jako výrobce odolného kvalitního pracovního oblečení a svým obratem zaplnilo 80% trhu Velké Británie. Jako součást této strategie bylo společnosti přidáno do názvu nové jméno, které Harold zvolil dle příjmení své manželky (Leigh) a tímto spojením vzniklo "Lee Cooper".

V roce 1952 se rozrostl sortiment pro ženy a Lee Cooper uvedl dámské džíny. Jelikož firma přichází s předním zipem u dámských džínů, šokovaná veřejnost je hlasitě slyšet. V roce 1954 také uvádí svou první kolekci oblečení pro děti. Od roku 1955 se dále rozvíjí a stává se prémiovou značkou v Británii, přičemž otevírá další výrobní závod v Holandsku. Navrhuje i několik originálních střihů pro muže a ženy, uvádí džíny a kalhoty s puky jako dvě oddělené výrobkové řady a v roce 1960 přináší kostkované kalhoty s puky. Značka také začíná vyrábět džíny pro firmu Wrangler. Do poloviny šedesátých let přichází i s PVC džínami, které vyvolají velký rozruch na londýnské Carnaby Street a v roce 1966 zavádí také úzké džíny. Od roku 1967 vyrábí i trička a s nástupem subkultury Hippies také barevné a zdobené džíny.

Džíny Lee Cooper byly v padesátých a šedesátých letech přijaty jako součást stylu mládežnickou subkulturou a Harold Cooper vydělával právě na tom, že podporoval populární kapely a osobnosti jako byly Rolling Stones jimž organizoval turné, Serge Gainsbourg, Jane Birkinová, později i UB 40 nebo Rod Stewart  Mimo to uvedl sérii odvážných reklamních kampaní přičemž některé z nich obsahovali i jména fiktivních návrhářů jako je italská "Alfredo Angelous". To vše s cílem odvolat se k tehdy populárním subkulturám jako byly například Mods, kteří upřednostňovali kontinentální styl.

Na počátku sedmdesátých let přichází Lee Cooper s minisukněmi a opět vyvolává rozruch s jejich zkrácenými a posléze zase prodlouženými variantami. Později uvádí i kraťasy, semišové pánské kalhoty, safari komplety a v neposlední řadě také s prvními zvonovými kalhotami. V polovině sedmdesátých let firma opět rozšiřuje výrobu otevřením továren v Irsku, Francii a Tunisku. Tyto provozy pak do poloviny osmdesátých let vyráběli 40-45 tisíc oděvů týdně. Během této doby vzrostl roční obrat na více než 100 milionů £. V době vlny disco kultury a poté punku v sedmdesátých letech sleduje firma trh a obratně reaguje na jeho požadavky a to znovuzavedením manšestrové látky v různých barevných variacích a také sepraných džín pro punkovou subkulturu. V osmdesátých letech pokračuje firma jako jedna z nejznámějších výrobců oblečení z denimové látky, zavádí džíny se šňůrkami (tzv. "jogging jean"), neprané džíny, "otrhané" džíny nebo "plísňové" džíny. Sponzoruje nadále rockové hvězdy a byla také jedním z hlavních sponzorů Mistrovství Evropy ve fotbale 1984 ve Francii. V roce 1989 přichází společnost také s první kolekcí své vlastní obuvi.

V roce 1989 rodina Cooperů prodává svůj většinový podíl v podniku. Do té doby se značka Lee Cooper stala "životním stylem" mnoha lidí.

V roce 1992 se kvůli vysoké poptávce stěhuje veškerá výroba do moderního závodu v Tunisku. Firma i nadále vychází vstříc módním trendům a zavádí první volné džíny s pěti kapsami (kolekce "3 by 1") se kterými slaví velký úspěch. V roce 2000 je pak uznána jako jedna z nejlepších autentických evropských denimových značek a následně rok nato vytvářejí novou řadu Aqua denim, moderní, vodě odolnou džínovou řadu.

V roce 2007 vytvořil francouzský návrhář Jean-Charles de Castelbajac pro značku Lee Cooper kolekci pojmenovanou JCDC Denim. Kolekce čerpá inspiraci z Britských rokových ikon šedesátých let a rok na to vydává firma kolekci oblečení inspirovanou skupinou The Beatles.

Značka Lee Cooper dodnes (2017) spolupracuje s významnými módními návrháři i různými umělci a dodává denimové oblečení britským olympionikům i para-olympionikům.

V roce 2008 oslavila své sté výročí od založení. Firma nadále působí ve více než stech zemích po celém světě.

Reference

Externí odkazy

Domovská stránka Lee Cooper v UK
Domovská stránka Lee Cooper v ČR

Britské firmy
Britské oděvní firmy
Firmy založené roku 1908

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
William Havard - Actor and Playwright
Born 1710 ca.
in Dublin
Actor and dramatist. Son of a vintner.
Havard wrote several plays including King Charles the First (1736/7 - written in imitation of Shakespeare) and the tragedies Scanderbeg (1732/3) and Regulus (1743/4). Scanderbeg was performed two times at the Theatre in Goodman's Fields, and according to one source was an utter failure.1 He was an actor at Drury Lane for most of his career.
He is buried in the courtyard of "the actors' church" St. Pauls Church, next to Covent Garden.
1. Nicoll, A. (1927). A History of English Drama, 1660-1900. p. 83
Boswell attended a meeting in the Beefsteak Club on November 27, 1762, at which Havard was also present.