Cruise Report Windward Caribbean Dec 3 – 20, 2018
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
St. Eustatius (Statia)
St. Eustatius (Statia) Overview: Sint Eustatius, also known as Statia, is one of the islands which make up the Netherlands Antilles. Over its long history, it changed hands more than 20 times. The island has remained in Dutch hands since 1816. Vocanic in origin, and quite rugged along the coastal areas, it was once one of the busiest and most powerful commercial ports in the Caribbean. As a result of the British blockade during America's Revolutionary War, most goods destined for the new colonies flowed into St. Eustatius. It was not uncommon to see hundreds of supply ships off Oranjestad. When that war ended and mail and supplies were sent directly to the new United States, the economy of St. Eustatius changed dramatically. According to tradition, it was the first foreign port to salute (1776) the American flag. Tourism is the major industry today, and the island is a favorite destination for scuba diving aficionados and nature lovers. Territory: Highest point = Mt. Mazinga, 1,968 ft. (602m) St. Eustatius is hilly with a central flat plain. Sandy beaches are rare. Geographically, the island is saddle- shaped, with the 602 meter-high Mount Mazinga, colloquially called the Quill (a dormant volcano) to the southeast and the smaller pair Signal Hill/Little Mountain and Boven Mountain to the northwest. The bulk of the island's population lives in the "dip" between the two areas, which crosses the center of the island. The island is just 5 miles long and 2 miles wide; area: 21 sq. km. Location: It is in the northern, Leeward Islands portion of the West Indies, some distance southeast of the Virgin Islands. -
(OECD) 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes Has Found the Curaçao Tax Regimes Not to Be Harmful
Newsflash OECD report on Curaçao tax regimes The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes has found the Curaçao tax regimes not to be harmful. The OECD released a new publication on January 29, 2019, called “Harmful Tax Practices - 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes”. The results show that jurisdictions have delivered on their commitment to comply with the standard on harmful tax practices, including their guarantee that preferential regimes align taxation with substance. The 2018 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes contains new conclusions on 57 regimes based on the assessment of preferential tax regimes comprising more than 120 member jurisdictions of the Inclusive Framework. Curaçao tax regimes Curaçao has amended three preferential regimes considered to be harmful (the exempt company regime, the export facility and the economic zone), and it has introduced the innovation box regime. The Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) has assessed the amendments and the conclusion was as follows: the Curaçao Investment Company is not harmful, the innovation box is not harmful, the economic zone is out of scope, and the export regime has been abolished. The Curaçao Investment Company The exempt company has been replaced with the Curaçao Investment Company, which has been assessed to be “not harmful”. This means amendments have been taken into account to ensure the removal of harmful features. The report also mentions that substance requirements are in place and that no grandfathering is provided. The Innovation Box Regime The Innovation Box Regime was designed in compliance with FHTP standards and has been assessed to be “not harmful”. -
Ix Viii the World by Income
The world by income Classified according to World Bank estimates of 2016 GNI per capita (current US dollars,Atlas method) Low income (less than $1,005) Greenland (Den.) Lower middle income ($1,006–$3,955) Upper middle income ($3,956–$12,235) Faroe Russian Federation Iceland Islands High income (more than $12,235) (Den.) Finland Norway Sweden No data Canada Netherlands Estonia Isle of Man (U.K.) Russian Latvia Denmark Fed. Lithuania Ireland U.K. Germany Poland Belarus Belgium Channel Islands (U.K.) Ukraine Kazakhstan Mongolia Luxembourg France Moldova Switzerland Romania Uzbekistan Dem.People’s Liechtenstein Bulgaria Georgia Kyrgyz Rep.of Korea United States Azer- Rep. Spain Monaco Armenia Japan Portugal Greece baijan Turkmenistan Tajikistan Rep.of Andorra Turkey Korea Gibraltar (U.K.) Syrian China Malta Cyprus Arab Afghanistan Tunisia Lebanon Rep. Iraq Islamic Rep. Bermuda Morocco Israel of Iran (U.K.) West Bank and Gaza Jordan Bhutan Kuwait Pakistan Nepal Algeria Libya Arab Rep. Bahrain The Bahamas Western Saudi Qatar Cayman Is. (U.K.) of Egypt Bangladesh Sahara Arabia United Arab India Hong Kong, SAR Cuba Turks and Caicos Is. (U.K.) Emirates Myanmar Mexico Lao Macao, SAR Haiti Cabo Mauritania Oman P.D.R. N. Mariana Islands (U.S.) Belize Jamaica Verde Mali Niger Thailand Vietnam Guatemala Honduras Senegal Chad Sudan Eritrea Rep. of Guam (U.S.) Yemen El Salvador The Burkina Cambodia Philippines Marshall Nicaragua Gambia Faso Djibouti Federated States Islands Guinea Benin Costa Rica Guyana Guinea- Brunei of Micronesia Bissau Ghana Nigeria Central Ethiopia Sri R.B. de Suriname Côte South Darussalam Panama Venezuela Sierra d’Ivoire African Lanka French Guiana (Fr.) Cameroon Republic Sudan Somalia Palau Colombia Leone Togo Malaysia Liberia Maldives Equatorial Guinea Uganda São Tomé and Príncipe Rep. -
St.!Eustatius! Children’S!Rights!In!The!Caribbean!Netherlands! Karin!Kloosterboer! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! May!2013! ! !
Child on Sint Eustatius Children’s rights in the Caribbean Netherlands Karin Kloosterboer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Child!on!St.!Eustatius! Children’s!rights!in!the!Caribbean!Netherlands! Karin!Kloosterboer! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! May!2013! ! ! ! ! Foreword! You!have!before!you!Child&on&St.&Eustatius.&Children’s&rights&in&the&Caribbean&Netherlands:! a!UNICEF!study!into!the!situation!of!children!growing!up!on!the!tropical!island!of!St.! Eustatius,!and!one!that!is!innovating!and!exceptional!for!several!reasons.! ! This!study!is!the!first!to!shed!light!on!all!aspects!of!the!lives!of!children!in!the!Caribbean! Netherlands.!!Child&on&St.&Eustatius!outlines!the!correlations!between!various!factors:! family!situation,!education,!health!and!health!care,!safety,!leisure!time,!participation,! housing!conditions,!and!financial!situation.!Alongside!this!report,!there!are!also!separate! reports!about!Saba!and!Bonaire.! ! ! This!is!also!a!pioneering!study!in!that!it!actually!surveyed!the!people!who!are!at!stake:!the! children!who!grow!up!on!the!islands.!Other!than!that,!the!study!also!drew!heavily!on!input! from!numerous!experts!who!play!a!role!in!children’s!lives!on!the!islands.!The!hearts!and! minds!of!these!–!often!inspired!–!professionals!contain!a!huge!wealth!of!information! about!both!children’s!lives!and!possibilities!for!improvement!of!their!lives.! ! This!study!paints!a!detailed!picture!that!the!researchers!have!subsequently!assessed! based!on!the!United!Nations!Convention!on!the!Rights!of!the!Child.!After!ratifying!this! -
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba and the European Netherlands Conclusions
JOINED TOGETHER FOR FIVE YEARS BONAIRE, SINT EUSTATIUS, SABA AND THE EUROPEAN NETHERLANDS CONCLUSIONS Preface On 10 October 2010, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba each became a public entitie within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the run-up to this transition, it was agreed to evaluate the results of the new political structure after five years. Expectations were high at the start of the political change. Various objectives have been achieved in these past five years. The levels of health care and education have improved significantly. But there is a lot that is still disappointing. Not all expectations people had on 10 October 2010 have been met. The 'Committee for the evaluation of the constitutional structure of the Caribbean Netherlands' is aware that people have different expectations of the evaluation. There is some level of scepticism. Some people assume that the results of the evaluation will lead to yet another report, which will not have a considerable contribution to the, in their eyes, necessary change. Other people's expectations of the evaluation are high and they expect the results of the evaluation to lead to a new moment or a relaunch for further agreements that will mark the beginning of necessary changes. In any case, five years is too short a period to be able to give a final assessment of the new political structure. However, five years is an opportune period of time to be able to take stock of the situation and identify successes and elements that need improving. Add to this the fact that the results of the evaluation have been repeatedly identified as the cause for making new agreements. -
Automatic Exchange of Information (AEI) List of Counterparty Jurisdictions for Your Accounts Booked in British Virgin Islands
ab Automatic Exchange of Information (AEI) List of Counterparty Jurisdictions for your accounts booked in British Virgin Islands Disclaimer UBS AG and its affiliated entities (UBS) does not provide legal or tax advice and this summary does not constitute such advice. UBS strongly recommends all persons considering the information described in this summary obtain appropriate independent legal, tax and other professional advice. This summary is for your information only and is not intended as an offer, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any product or other specific services. Although all pieces of information and views expressed in this summary were obtained from sources believed to be reliable and in good faith, neither representation nor warranty, express or implied is made as to its accuracy or completeness. The general explanations included in this summary cannot address your personal situation and financial needs. All information is subject to change without notice. This summary may not be reproduced or copies circulated without prior authority of UBS. The status of a jurisdiction can change at any time. Whilst UBS will use all reasonable endeavors to update this list, there may be changes which become effective before a revised list is published. Information to be reported will depend on the status of the client's jurisdiction(s) of tax residence at the cut-off date for reporting and such status may differ from the status displayed on this list. Information contained in the below table does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any territory or of its authorities. -
The Lesser Antillean Iguana on St
WWW.IRCF.ORG/REPTILESANDAMPHIBIANSJOURNALTABLE OF CONTENTS IRCF REPTILES & AMPHIBIANSIRCF REPTILES • VOL15, N&O AMPHIBIANS4 • DEC 2008 189 • 20(2):44–52 • JUN 2013 IRCF REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS CONSERVATION AND NATURAL HISTORY TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURE ARTICLES The Lesser. Chasing Bullsnakes (AntilleanPituophis catenifer sayi) in Wisconsin: Iguana on St. Eustatius: On the Road to Understanding the Ecology and Conservation of the Midwest’s Giant Serpent ...................... Joshua M. Kapfer 190 . The Shared History of Treeboas (Corallus grenadensis) and Humans on Grenada: AA Hypothetical2012 Excursion ............................................................................................................................Population Status UpdateRobert W. Henderson 198 RESEARCH ARTICLESand Causes for Concern . The Texas Horned Lizard in Central and Western Texas ....................... Emily Henry, Jason Brewer, Krista Mougey, and Gad Perry 204 . The Knight Anole (Anolis equestris) in Florida 1 2 3 .............................................AdolpheBrian O. J. Debrot Camposano,, KennethErik B.L. Krysko, Boman Kevin ,M. and Enge, Hannah Ellen M. Donlan, Madden and Michael Granatosky 212 1Institute for Marine Research and Ecosystem Studies (IMARES), Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 57, 1780AB, Den Helder, The Netherlands ([email protected]) CONSERVATION ALERT 2Agriculture Department of St. Eustatius, Oranjestad, St. Eustatius ([email protected]) . World’s3St. Eustatius Mammals Nationalin Crisis ............................................................................................................................................................ -
Country Codes for International ACH and IAT Payments
Country Codes for International ACH and IAT Payments (Used for PAM SPR Field #34 ‐ CountryCodeText and SPS 440 File Format Field #11 ‐ Country Code Text ) Code Country or Area Name Code Country or Area Name AF Afghanistan IO British Indian Ocean Territory AX Aland Islands BN Brunei Darussalam AL Albania BG Bulgaria DZ Algeria BF Burkina Faso AS American Samoa* BI Burundi AD Andorra KH Cambodia AO Angola CM Cameroon AI Anguilla CA Canada AQ Antarctica CV Cape Verde AG Antigua and Barbuda KY Cayman Islands AR Argentina CF Central African Republic AM Armenia TD Chad AW Aruba CL Chile AU Australia CN China AT Austria HK Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China AZ Azerbaijan MO Macao, Special Administrative Region of China BS Bahamas CX Christmas Island BH Bahrain CC Cocos (Keeling) Islands BD Bangladesh CO Colombia BB Barbados KM Comoros BY Belarus CG Congo (Brazzaville) BE Belgium CD Congo, Democratic Republic of the BZ Belize CK Cook Islands BJ Benin CR Costa Rica BM Bermuda CI Côte d'Ivoire BT Bhutan HR Croatia BO Bolivia CU Cuba BQ Bonaire Sint Eustatius and Saba CW Curacao / Curacao BA Bosnia and Herzegovina CY Cyprus BW Botswana CZ Czech Republic BV Bouvet Island DK Denmark BR Brazil DJ Djibouti VG British Virgin Islands DM Dominica 1 of 4 *U.S territories, APO and FPO are not considered IAT countries and are not subject to IAT formatting. Country Codes for International ACH and IAT Payments (Used for PAM SPR Field #34 ‐ CountryCodeText and SPS 440 File Format Field #11 ‐ Country Code Text ) Code Country or Area Name Code Country -
United Nations Ep
UNITED NATIONS EP Distr. LIMITED United Nations Environment UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4.Rev. 1 Programme 3 July 2008 UNEP Original: ENGLISH Fourth Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) to the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region Gosier, Guadeloupe, France, 2-5 July 2008 REVISED DRAFT ANNOTATED FORMAT FOR PRESENTATION REPORTS FOR THE AREAS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE SPAW LIST OBJECTIVE The objective of this Annotated Format is to guide the Contracting Parties in producing reports of comparable contents as requested in Article 19 (2) of the Protocol, including the information necessary for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the criteria set out in the Protocol and in the Guidelines (Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under SPAW). CONTENTS The presentation report shall include the following main information on: (i) identification of the proposed protected area (ii) site description (iii) its Caribbean importance (iv) the activities in and around the areas and their impacts (v) legal framework (vi) management measures (vii) human and financial resources available for the management and the protection of the site. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS The reports should be submitted to the SPAW/RAC two months before the meeting of STAC for SPAW in English, Spanish or in French. Dossier should be compiled on A4 paper, with maps and plans annexed on paper with maximum size of an A3 paper. Contracting parties are also encouraged to submit the full text of the proposal in electronic form. -
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL 7: ENERGY INDICATORS (2018) Renewable Energy (% of TFEC) 3.2 Access to Electricity (% of Population) N.A
ENERGY PROFILE Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL 7: ENERGY INDICATORS (2018) Renewable energy (% of TFEC) 3.2 Access to electricity (% of population) n.a. Energy efficiency (MJ per $1 of GDP) NaN Access to clean cooking (% of population) n.a. Public flows renewables (2018 USD M) n.a. Per capita renewable capacity (W/person) 649.189 TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY SUPPLY (TPES) TPES 2013 2018 Total primary energy supply in 2018 Non-renewable (TJ) 5 052 5 459 3% Oil Renewable (TJ) 152 154 Total (TJ) 5 204 5 613 Gas Renewable share (%) 3 3 Nuclear Growth in TPES 2013-18 2017-18 Non-renewable (%) +8.1 +3.5 Coal + others Renewable (%) +1.0 -8.4 97% Total (%) +7.9 +3.1 Renewables Primary energy trade 2013 2018 Renewable energy supply in 2018 Imports (TJ) 14 101 14 895 3% Exports (TJ) 0 0 Hydro/marine 21% Net trade (TJ) - 14 101 - 14 895 Wind Imports (% of supply) 271 265 Exports (% of production) 0 0 Solar Energy self-sufficiency (%) 3 3 Bioenergy Net trade (USD million) n.a. n.a. 76% Net trade (% of GDP) n.a. n.a. Geothermal RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION Consumption by source 2013 2018 Renewable energy consumption in 2018 Electricity (TJ) 110 108 4% Heat (TJ) 0 0 Electricity Bioenergy (TJ) 4 4 Solar + geothermal (TJ) 0 0 Heat Total (TJ) 114 112 Electricity share (%) 96 96 Bioenergy Consumption growth 2013-18 2017-18 96% Solar + Renewable electricity (%) -1.8 -11.0 geothermal Other renewables (%) 0.0 0.0 Total (%) -1.8 -10.6 Industry Consumption by sector 2013 2018 Industry (TJ) 64 56 Transport 47% Transport (TJ) 0 0 49% Households -
Areas with Risk of Zika
Areas with Risk of Zika Asia: Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Vietnam The Pacific Islands: Fiji, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga The Caribbean: Anguilla; Antigua and Barbuda; Aruba; Barbados; Bonaire; British Virgin Islands; Cuba; Curaçao; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Grenada; Haiti; Jamaica; Montserrat; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a US territory; Saba; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Martin; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sint Eustatius; Sint Maarten; Trinidad and Tobago; Turks and Caicos Islands; US Virgin Islands North America: Mexico Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela Africa: Angola, Benin, Burkina-Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Congo- Brazzaville), Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo-Kinshasa), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda Technical note: Because of variations in laboratory and surveillance capacity internationally, data are not available to define levels of risk. CDC, the World Health Organization, and the European CDC have jointly reviewed the scientific literature to define a Zika virus country classification scheme. CDC provides travel recommendations for countries/territories/subnational areas falling into Category 1, Category 2, and the Category 4 sub-group within the classification framework. Current as of: March 9, 2018 . -
IVM Institute for Environmental Studies the Tourism Value of Nature on St Eustatius
IVM Institute for Environmental Studies The Tourism Value of Nature on St Eustatius S. van de Kerkhof S.W. Schep P. van Beukering L. Brander E. Wolfs Report R-14/07 06 May 2014 This report was commissioned by: Ministry of Economic Affairs, Netherlands IVM Wolfs Company office: Institute for Environmental Studies VU University Amsterdam Sabadeco West 230 De Boelelaan 1087 Santa Barbara 1081 HV AMSTERDAM Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands The Netherlands The Netherlands T +31-20-598 9555 T +599 7883595 F +31-20-598 9553 E [email protected] E [email protected] Copyright © 2014, Institute for Environmental Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo- copying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder IVM Institute for Environmental Studies The Tourism Value of Nature on St Eustatius Contents List of abbreviations 5 Summary 7 1 Introduction 9 2 Context of this study 11 2.1 Project framework and funding 11 2.2 St Eustatius 13 2.3 Prior studies 16 3 Methodology 17 3.1 Theoretical background 17 3.2 Research method 18 3.3 Choice experiment design 19 3.4 Survey design 23 3.5 Procedure 24 3.6 Possible biases and challenges 24 4 Results 27 4.1 Visitor numbers 27 4.2 Representativeness 28 4.3 Visitor characteristics 28 4.4 Experience and activities 32 4.5 Perceived potential threats 34 4.6 Statements 34 4.7 Who is ‘in principle’ willing to pay for conservation? 37 4.8 Choice experiment