04-07-2010 om 23:09 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

01-07-2010 om 23:28 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Brussel, 18 juni 2010

ACV – ABVV – MEMORANDUM AAN DE INFORMATEUR EN DE FORMATEUR VAN DE NIEUWE FEDERALE REGERING

________________________________________________________

Voor solidariteit - tegen toenemende ongelijkheid

ABVV en ACV vragen dat de toekomstige regering een toekomstgericht project uitwerkt en concretiseert met solidariteit als sleutelwoord en dus gericht op een rechtvaardige verdeling van de welvaart. Hun gemeenschappelijke prioriteiten worden ingeschreven in de koepeldoelstellingen om de ongelijkheden tussen mannen en vrouwen weg te werken en een duurzame ontwikkeling te bevorderen.

ACV en ABVV vragen eerst en vooral dat de nieuwe regering het eigen actieterrein van de sociale partners ten volle respecteert. Ze vragen:

- erkenning en bevordering van het eigen initiatief van de sociale partners ( ook inzake het statuut arbeiders/bedienden) en respect voor de wet en het overlegmechanisme voor de welvaartsvastheid van de sociale uitkeringen;

- respect voor de vrijheid van onderhandelingen en het recht op collectieve actie;

- reële inspraak in zowel het sociaal beleid als het economisch - financieel beleid, via de formele inspraakkanalen.

ABVV en ACV leggen volgende prioriteiten voor aan de komende regering.

1. Meer en betere banen in het kader van een nieuw groeimodel

Het eerste antwoord op de werkloosheid, zowel als de vergrijzing is een krachtig en doelmatig werkgelegenheidsbeleid, gericht op een sterke, duurzame groei en een maximale jobcreatie. Met prioriteit voor de strijd tegen de werkloosheid en werkonzekerheid bij jongeren.

Een louter defensief verhaal, gericht op loonkosten en flexibiliteit, moet plaats maken voor een meer offensief sociaal-economisch beleid:

- dat berust op kwaliteit en concurrentie door innovatie, onderwijs en vorming: op basis van een geïntegreerde beleidsstrategie, in samenwerking met de Gewesten/ Gemeenschappen, opdat België op elk van die vlakken een topplaats verovert, met grondige evaluatie van het beleid op de verschillende beleidsniveaus;

- dat de Belgische economie meer doet opschuiven naar industriële en dienstensectoren, naar producten/diensten en naar exportmarkten met een sterker groeipotentieel;

- dat voluit het werkgelegeheidspotentieel benut van de ecologische transitie.

De ontwikkeling van de loonkosten is een zaak van vrije, verantwoordelijke onderhandelingen onder sociale partners: geen opgelegde loonnorm, behoud van de index en baremieke verhogingen.

Het werkgelegenheidsbeleid wordt al te eenzijdig gericht op de aanbodzijde van de arbeidsmarkt. De komende jaren moet veel meer aandacht gaan naar de vraagzijde: meer jobs (werkervaringskansen voor jongeren, uitbouw van de sociale economie, meer kansen op alternerend leren-werken), betere jobs en minder discriminaties.

2. Een sterke sociale zekerheid, met absolute voorrang voor de eerste pijler

ACV en ABVV blijven opkomen voor een sterke federale sociale zekerheid die steunt op een goed evenwicht tussen solidariteit en verzekering.

Bij voorrang moet werk worden gemaakt van een sterkere eerste pijler in de sociale zekerheid:

- een verbreding van het financiële draagvlak, door meer alternatieve financiering, actievere strijd tegen de bijdragefraude en –ontwijkingen een krachtig werkgelegenheidsbeleid (zie hoger);

- vrijwaring en volledige invulling van het structurele mechanisme voor de welvaartsvastheid van de vervangingsinkomens;

- versterking van het wettelijke pensioenstelsel, zonder optrekking van de pensioenleeftijd;

- een versterking van het wettelijke pensioenstelsel, wetende dat voor ons de tweede pensioenpijler niet de toekomst voor ons pensioenstelsel kan zijn, maar enkel een supplement bovenop het verbeterd wettelijk pensioen;

- geen verhoging van de wettelijke pensioenleeftijd en geen afbouw van het brugpensioen;

- een kwaliteitsvolle en toegankelijke gezondheidszorg: omvorming van het stelsel van hulp aan bejaarden tot een volwaardige federale zorgverzekering, uitgavenbeheersing maar niet op rug van patiënten of personeel;

- beperking van de werkloosheidsuitkeringen in de tijd of afschaffing van de wachtuitkeringen is onbespreekbaar.

3. Sterke openbare diensten

Economie en samenleving hebben nood aan een goed werkende overheid, met performante overheidsdiensten en –bedrijven:

- een sterkere investering in openbare diensten;

- een verbetering van het sociaal overleg, met primauteit aan de statutaire tewerkstelling;

- een aantrekkelijke pensioenregeling, zowel voor ambtenaren (vrijwaring van het ambtenarenpensioen als uitgesteld loon) als voor contractuelen (onderhandelde regeling aanvullend pensioen).

De Belgische overheid moet Europees weerwerk bieden tegen de druk tot liberalisering en commercialisering en steun geven aan de eis voor een verordening voor de openbare diensten.

ACV en ABVV staan achter een hervorming van het gerechtelijke landschap, op voorwaarde dat ze beantwoordt aan de krachtlijnen die de sociale partners gemeenschappelijk hebben bepaald, d.w.z. met behoud van afzonderlijke, maar vergrote arbeidsrechtbanken.

4. Vrijwaring en versteviging van de syndicale rechten

De sociaal-economische democratie moet verder worden uitgebouwd, in het bijzonder:

- erkenning van de vrijheid van onderhandelingen, zonder inmenging van de overheid;

- verbetering syndicale aanwezigheid in KMO’s;

- adequate bescherming van de afgevaardigden van de werknemers;

- onder geen beding wettelijke of Europese ingrepen in het recht op staken en ruimer op collectieve acties.

5. Een rechtvaardig begrotingsbeleid

ACV en ABVV beseffen dat de nieuwe federale regering voor de uitdaging staat om het begrotingsevenwicht te herstellen en de schuld af te bouwen. Ze herinneren er aan dat de verslechtering van de begroting niet de schuld is van de werknemers maar van diegenen die de financiële en economische crisis veroorzaakt hebben. Daarom eisen ze dat de gezondmaking van de begroting aangepakt wordt:

- Door maatregelen en volgens een tempo dat het prille herstel van groei en werkgelegenheid niet schaadt;

- eerst en vooral door nieuwe inkomsten, in het bijzonder bij diegenen die totnogtoe meest werden ontzien;

- door de zwaarste lasten op de sterkste schouders te leggen; met vrijwaring van de lage inkomens en de sociale uitkeringstrekkers;

- zonder de collectieve diensten te ontwrichten.

6. Een rechtvaardiger en progressieve fiscaliteit.

Volgens ABVV en ACV moet de regering en de nieuwe Minister van Financiën het voorbije wanbeleid rechttrekken en de ruimte benutten voor een betere verdeling en een betere inning van de belastingen, door;

- een actievere strijd tegen fiscale fraude en ontwijking: afschaffing fiscaal bankgeheim, afschaffing forfaitaire belasting zelfstandigen, bestrijding van vennootschappen opgericht om personenbelasting en te ontduiken;

- een vermindering van de druk op arbeid door een sterkere belasting op andere inkomens, in het bijzonder een versterkte vermogensfiscaliteit (vermogensbelasting, vermogenskadaster, meerwaardebelasting op aandelen en opties…), een belastingadministratie die over het management, de menskracht en de middelen beschikt om de belastingen correct te innen;

- heroverweging van alle belastingaftrekken en –verminderingen in functie van rechtvaardigheid en doelmatigheid;

- in geen geval uitholling van de progressiviteit van de personenbelasting: geen vlaktaks, noch fair taks;

- een stop op de aanhoudende daling van de inkomsten uit vennootschapsbelasting en aan de ontsporing van de notionele intrestaftrek.

7. Duurzame ontwikkeling

De federale overheid zal, samen met de sociale partners en de Gemeenschappen / Gewesten, haar beleid meer dan ooit in het teken moeten stellen van de duurzame ontwikkeling, met garanties op een rechtvaardige transitie, in het bijzonder naar de werknemers en de lage inkomens. In het bijzonder is nood aan:

- een meer duurzame fiscaliteit, die gebruik van milieu- en energievriendelijke producten en productiewijzen aanmoedigt, met garanties dat dit de herverdeling niet ondergraaft;

- een energiebeleid dat de economie en samenleving helpt de omslag te maken naar energiezuinigheid (o.m. programma voor isolatie woningen) en aanzienlijk meer hernieuwbare energie, zonder in vraag stelling van de wet op de kernuitstap;

- de toegang tot energie garandeert voor allen, door een sterkere regulering van de gas- en elektriciteitsmarkt die bijdraagt tot een betere marktwerking (met correcte prijszetting);

- een duurzaam mobiliteitsbeleid: meer en beter openbaar vervoer, aangepast aan de behoeften van de werknemers; overal een bedrijfsvervoerplan; milieu- en energievriendelijke voertuigen.

8. Federale solidariteit en staatshervorming

ACV en ABVV verwachten van de komende regering dat bij een discussie over de staatshervorming:

- voorrang wordt gegeven aan de herfinanciering van de federale overheid, die meer dan 90% van de vergrijzingskosten moet dragen;

- de interpersoonlijke solidariteit gevrijwaard wordt door het federaal houden van de solidariteitsmechanismen: de volledige sociale zekerheid, het arbeidsrecht en de sectorale en interprofessionele CAO’s;

- geen fiscale dumping wordt georganiseerd door regionale autonomie inzake vennootschapbelasting;

- de samenwerking tussen de overheden versterkt wordt.

ABVV en ACV willen niet voor voldongen feiten worden geplaatst voor domeinen die tot hun kerntaken behoren. Hervormingen die volgens hen geen reële verbetering inhouden voor de werknemers en niet – actieven in de drie gewesten of deze met elkaar in concurrentie plaatsen of de inter-persoonlijke solidariteit aantasten, zijn niet aanvaardbaar.

9. Een actieve Europese en internationale rol

De federale regering moet – in volledige transparantie en in overleg met de sociale partners – sterker investeren in de beïnvloeding van het Europese beleid en dat van de internationale instellingen en in de internationale samenwerking. Het Europees voorzitterschap vanaf 1 juli is daartoe een uitgelezen kans.

België moet Europees ijveren voor onder meer:

- een gecoördineerd Europees relanceplan;

- een evenwichtige uitvoering van de strategie Europa 2020, met eenwicht tussen de economische, sociale en ecologische beleidsdoelstellingen en zonder het sociale beleid te versmallen tot armoedebestrijding;

- een verordening voor de openbare diensten;

- een herziening van de arbeidstijdenrichtlijn, zonder opting out (mogelijkheid van uitstap);

- maatregelen tegen fiscale dumping, versterking en uitdieping van de spaarrichtlijn en invoering van een minimumtarief in de vennootschapsbelasting;

- de effectieve invoering van een belasting op de financiële transacties;

- een krachtig beleid voor herregulering en een verbeterd toezicht op de financiële markten;

- waarborgen tegen sociale dumping (inz. versterking van en samenwerking tussen inspectiediensten).

Internationaal zijn prioritair:

- een aanhoudende inspanning van België ten belope 0.7 % van het BBP voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking;

- een volgehouden actie voor de milleniumdoelstellingen, met meer aandacht voor werk en sociale zekerheid als hefbomen tegen de armoede, inz. door de ontwikkeling van een internationale sociale bodembescherming;

- een verankering van de doelstelling van waardig werk in het beleid van de financieel-economische instellingen (IMF, Wereldbank, OESO, WHO);

- een billijk beleid van humanitaire immigratie, met regularisatie van reeds hier aanwezige mensen zonder papieren op basis van objectieve criteria

en hier vind je de partijstandpunten van de NVA. Wij zouden het in jullie plaats kunnen doen maar het is echt te warm en om de overeenkomsten te vinden is het zoals met de naald en de hooiberg...

01-07-2010 om 22:40 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Riga Ghetto

Ghettos

Riga

Riga, the capital of Latvia, was officially founded in 1201. In common with many other places in eastern Europe, the city came to be ruled by a variety of different nations. Although the name Livonia still describes a region of modern-day Latvia, the State of Livonia (Livland), dominated by the Order of the Teutonic Knights (Fratres militie Christi de Livonia) and covering much of the territory of modern-day Latvia and Estonia, effectively ceased to exist in the late 16th century, when Riga became a part of Poland. Polish rule lasted only a few years, for following a lengthy war between Poland and Sweden, the city fell under Swedish rule in 1621. In 1710, as part of an ongoing war between Sweden and Russia, the city was incorporated within the Russian Empire, where it was to remain until 1918. Riga developed enormously both in terms of economic importance and population during this latter period, becoming the second largest city in north-western Russia after St Petersburg. During the course of WW1, in 1917 the city was occupied for a short time by German forces. After an armed struggle with the then newly created Soviet Union lasting two years, the Republic of Latvia was declared in August 1920, with Riga as its capital. On 17 June 1940, Soviet forces occupied Latvia, which was renamed the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Having first settled in Riga in the 17th century, Jews were expelled from the city in 1742, but were later permitted to return. By 1935 the flourishing Jewish population of Riga numbered 43,000, representing about half of the total Jewish inhabitants of Latvia and 11% of the city’s total population.

In his analysis of Latvian-Jewish relations in the pre-WW2 years, the historian Frank Gordon comments inter alia: The two decades of independent Latvia's existence are remembered by both Latvians and Jews as the 'good years'. Latvians were masters in their own land and governed well, and Jews and other minorities were guaranteed all the rights envisioned by the League of Nations for ethnic groups in eastern Europe. Jewish religion, culture, and national aspirations were not hampered or fettered in these years. The majority of Jewish inhabitants supported the new Latvian state, with about 1,200 Jews taking part in the Latvian war of independence.

The years 1934-1940 were the years of the authoritarian regime. Karlis Ulmanis, who proclaimed himself "Tautas Vadonis" (Leader of the Nation), was not only "populist" in his propaganda, but also quite popular with the people, especially among the farmers. Two fascist organizations openly advocating anti-Semitism, the National Club and Perkonkrusts (Thundercross) had been operating semi-legally. Immediately after the 15 May 1934 Coup they were declared illegal, and heavy penalties imposed for open, aggressive anti-Semitic propaganda. During the authoritarian regime the police actively pursued illegal groups, such as the communists and Perkonkrusts.

The Latvian historian Uldis Germanis stated:
"Independent Latvia was a state that respected human rights, that gave asylum also to the Jews persecuted by Hitler (who were turned away by humanitarian Sweden)."

Further, the Israeli historian Dov Levin commented:
"It is impossible to understand the Holocaust without knowing what happened in the western Soviet territories in 1939 to 1941. Although it is true that only a small proportion of the Jewish community took part in the excited and joyful demonstrations that welcomed the Red Army into Latvia, there were very many Jews who shared a feeling of relief and concord with that army, because of their fear that, in the international political constellation of those days, the only other alternative was the Nazi domination of Latvia."

What led so many Baltic Jews to welcome the hordes of Soviet militarism, of Bolshevik totalitarianism, of, one might even say, Red fascism? It is true that fear of the other alternative, Hitler's Germany, and illusions about the "essentially internationalist" nature of the Soviet regime played a large part. But the traditional complex or syndrome of "mimicry in self-defence," characteristic of the Jewish Diaspora in various troubled periods, also came into play. It is a fact that Jewish communities in those regions where a strong nation oppressed a weaker one, tended to support the stronger nation, not side with the weaker one. For example, it was so in Austro-Hungary, where Bohemian Jews sent their children not to Czech, but German schools; Galician Jews identified with the Polish upper class, not with Ruthenians (Ukrainians); and Transylvanian Jews even now consider themselves to be not Rumanian, but Hungarian Jews. The conspicuous position of the Jews in the new regime and its political and administrative apparatus caused the Latvians to identify the whole of the Jewish community with the hated Soviet regime which had been imposed upon them by the Red Army, rather than specific individuals.

The actual numbers of Latvians deported and shot by the Bolsheviks in their first year in power are estimated to be 30,000 and 1,488 respectively. Unfortunately, Latvians in Latvia noticed only that the perpetrators were not just Russians and Latvians, but also Jews - "again those Jews!". And this stuck in their memory. Moreover, on the invasion of Soviet territory, one advantage for Germany was the state of public feeling in the Baltic States. An overwhelming majority of Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians -- perhaps more than 95% -- looked upon the Germans as liberators. Such real sympathies as the Germans met in the Baltic countries immediately after their conquest had certainly not come their way since Hitler's assumption of power. No one could mistake the spontaneity of these heartfelt feelings.

Despite the hopes engendered by their invasion of Latvia, the assumption of German good intentions on the part of Latvians was not fulfilled; Latvia's independence was not restored. The German occupiers incorporated this land, called Generalbezirk Lettland, in a completely new administrative unit, the Reichskommissariat Ostland. This was essentially a German colony, with even less rights than the Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren, the former heartland of Czechoslovakia.
On 17-18 September 1941, in one of his confidential conversations (Tischgespräche), Hitler declared:
"But now we have no interest in maintaining the Baltic States."

Ruins in Riga

German forces occupied Riga on 1 July 1941. Although some Jews had fled the city eastwards in the wake of the retreating Red Army, many others who had taken refuge from the invaders in Riga were now trapped there. On the first day of the occupation, Latvian collaborators began arresting thousands of Jewish men and imprisoning them in the Centralka and Terminka jails, as well as in police headquarters and at the premises of Perkonkrust. The prisoners were first brutalized, then approximately 2,700 of them were murdered in the nearby Bikerniecki Forest. A further several thousand Jewish males were killed in Bikernieki Forest and at other locations during the course of July. On 4 July, Latvian volunteers set fire to the Chor synagogue, killing an unknown number of Jews who were locked inside the building, and later burned all other synagogues with the exception of the Pietstavas synagogue, which was left standing since adjacent buildings were occupied by Latvians.

Reichskommissar für das Ostland Hinrich Lohse governed his territory from Riga. Under him was Generalkommissar für Lettland Otto-Heinrich Drechsler. Lohse’s superior was Minister für die besetzten Ostgebiete (Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories) Alfred Rosenberg, in Berlin.

Riga's streets were renamed. Brivibas (Liberty) Street became Adolf-Hitler-Straße. Another street was named for Walter von Plettenberg, grand master of the Livonian knights. Completely obscure Germans such as Carl Schirren, Karl Ernst von Baer, and Victor Hehn had streets named after them, while the Latvian epic hero Lacplesis, eminent poet Janis Rainis, and national awakening era leader Krisjanis Valdemars lost theirs. All signs and notices had to be first in German (above), and only then in Latvian (below). Germans were allocated larger food rations than Latvians, who were restricted to 700 calories a day. Rations for Jews were even more inadequate.

Einsatzgruppe A, initially commanded by SS-Brigadeführer Franz Walter Stahlecker, operated in the Baltic states, with Einsatzkommandos 1a (headed by SS-Standartenführer Martin Sandberger and 2 (initially headed by SS-Sturmbannführer Rudolf Batz, subsequently by SS-Obersturmbannführer Eduard Strauch, then SS-Sturmbannführer Rudolf Erwin Lange) responsible for Riga. The headquarters of the Security Police and the SD for the Eastern Territories (BdS Reichskommissariat Ostland) were also situated in Riga. Odilo Globocnik’s representative in Riga was SS-Obersturmführer Georg Michalsen.

Although referring to events in Daugavpils (Dünaburg), there can be no doubt that the events described in Einsatzgruppen Operational Situation Report No.24 concerning the collaboration of Latvian auxiliaries, applied to an even greater extent to Riga, where by early August the Auxiliary Police (Schutzmannschaft) already numbered some 2,799 men (see Volunteer Auxiliaries):

Making Jews look like Fools

“The auxiliary police force consists of former police constables, members of the former Latvian Army, and members of the former ATZSARGI organization (Organization for Self Defence)… By 7 July the Latvians arrested 1,125 Jews, 32 political prisoners, 85 Russian workers, and 2 women criminals, the greater part during the last days. This is due to the EK backing the Latvians. Actions against the Jews are going on in an ever-increasing number. Conforming to a suggestion of the EK, the Jews are being evacuated by the auxiliary police force from all houses still standing. The apartments are being allocated to non-Jewish inhabitants. The Jewish families are being driven out of town by the Latvians; most of the men have been arrested… The arrested Jewish men are shot without ceremony and interred in previously prepared graves. Until now the EK 1b has shot 1,150 Jews in Daugavpils.”

Over the next three months, a reign of terror was introduced for the Jews of Riga. Many were driven from their homes and had their possessions confiscated, others were rounded up for forced labour. Jews were forced to wear the Star of David, forbidden to use public transport, walk on the pavements, frequent public places, receive any schooling, or practice their professions. They were only permitted to purchase their restricted food rations from three stores. Physical assaults became commonplace.

Riga Ghetto

Riga "Rest-Ghetto"

On the order of Oberbürgermeister Hugo Wittrock, the Gebietskommissar, a ghetto was established in the "Moscow quarter" ("Moskauer Vorstadt") of Riga on 25 October 1941. As elsewhere, the extremely congested area of the ghetto was deliberately chosen for its dilapidated housing and inadequate sanitary conditions and supply of water. At least 29,602 Jews were incarcerated in the sealed ghetto (some sources suggest as many as 32,000), which was surrounded by a high fence and guarded by Latvian auxiliaries. An Ältestenrat (Council of Elders) was appointed, with Michael Elyashov as its head and a Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst (Jewish Police Force) was formed, commanded by Michael Rosenthal. The Ältestenrat did its best to make living conditions bearable. A hospital, medical clinic, pharmacy and home for the aged were established. Men and women were supplied to the Germans for forced labour, including the construction of the Salaspils concentration camp near the city.
Quite often the ghetto was “visited” by Germans and Latvian policemen who plundered the Jews. They took everything: furs, pictures, crystal, blankets, linen, and musical instruments. Only some of these things were sent to Germany as “a gift from the Latvian nation for the Germans who fought against the Bolsheviks.” Most of the stolen Jewish property was taken by Latvians and Gestapo men.

On 11 October 1941, SS-Obergruppenführer Friedrich Jeckeln was appointed Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer für das Ostland (HSSPF), and thus became the person responsible for the carnage that ensued. Jeckeln met with Heinrich Himmler on 10 or 11 November 1941, when, according to Jeckeln’s post-war testimony, Himmler said:
“that all Jews in the Ostland had to be destroyed to the last man.”

Jeckeln’s predecessor, Hans-Adolf Prützmann, had indicated to Himmler that Lohse was against the liquidation of the Riga Ghetto, but Jeckeln was ordered to carry it out anyway. Himmler went on:
“You tell Lohse, that is my order, which is also the Führer’s wish!”

Deportation *

The Ghetto *

On 19 November 1941, working Jews were separated from the rest of the ghetto population and moved to a section in the northeast corner of the ghetto that had been cleared for the purpose. This area became known as the “Small Ghetto.” On the night of 29-30 November, the western section of the “Large Ghetto” was surrounded and the Jews gathered into groups of 1,000. The Jews had been told that they were simply being sent to a new camp nearby and to pack a 20-kilogram suitcase for the trip. Some people who had heard about the “resettlement” and interpreted this in fact to mean the physical liquidation of the Jews, decided to commit suicide. The next morning the groups were taken to the Rumbula Forest, 8 km from Riga, and shot. Large pits had been prepared for the purpose. Many people were killed on the ghetto streets or in their houses in the course of the Aktion. The drunken Latvian policemen, commanded by Herbert Cukurs, a famous former Latvian pilot who in 1933 flew over Africa and during the war was a German auxiliary police officer known as “The Butcher of Riga”, killed all the elderly Jews from the old people’s home. On that day, and continuing on 8 and 9 December, the entire population of the “Large Ghetto” was murdered, including most of the members of the Ältestenrat, the historian Simon Dubnow, and Rabbi Manahem Mendel Zak, the Chief Rabbi of Riga. In total, 27,800 Jews were killed in the Rumbula Forest in these Aktionen. One of the few survivors was Frida Frid-Mikhelson:
“Our column was divided up and everyone was ordered to undress… The Germans kept prodding us with their rifle butts closer and closer to the pit… Jews were already walking there one at a time, and vanishing behind the precipice – one could only hear the rattle of automatic rifles…I ran up to the officer who was in charge of the execution…He hit me in the head with his pistol, and I fell down. I was right next to the pit where the dead were being thrown. I pressed myself to the ground and tried not to move. A half hour later I heard someone shout in German: `Put the shoes here!’ By this time I had already crawled back a little. Just then, something was being thrown at me. I opened one eye slightly and saw a shoe lying next to my face. I was being covered up with shoes…Shots resounded quite close to me, and I could distinctly hear the last cries of people, the moans of the wounded who were thrown alive into the common grave. Some died cursing at their executioners, others died remembering their children and parents, others read prayers aloud…
… By evening the shooting had stopped… I decided to crawl out from under the pile of shoes… I crawled over to another pile – it was men’s clothing… I put on someone’s trousers and jacket and tied a big kerchief around my head… I came across a blanket cover, wrapped myself in it and began to crawl…”
Frida Frid-Mikhelson was sheltered by two Latvian families, the Berzins’ and Mezulis’, and later by a group of Seventh Day Adventists, who hid her and supplied her with food throughout the entire period of German occupation.

In addition to the killing sites at Rumbula and Bikernieki, concentration or labour camps were established in the vicinity of Riga at Kaiserwald (Mezaparks), Salaspils and Jungfernhof (Jumpravmuita), where executions were also carried out.

On 11 October 1941, Stahlecker visited Drechsler and informed him that in accordance with a “wish” of the Führer, a “big concentration camp” was to be established near Riga for Reich Jews. Lange (of Einsatzkommando 2) telephoned Drechsler on 21 October to report that it was planned to set up a camp (Salaspils) for 25,000 Reich Jews about 18 km from Riga. Lange then wrote to Lohse on 8 November confirming his conversation with Drechsler. When the Reichskommissariat political expert Regierungsrat Trampedach contacted the Ostministerium in Berlin to urge that the transports be stopped, he was informed by the chief of the ministry’s Political Division, Dr Leibbrandt, that there was no cause for worry, as the Jews would be sent “farther east” anyway – that is, they would be killed.

The Ghetto Fence *

After the Aktionen of November and December 1941, some 4,000 Latvian Jewish men were left in the “Small Ghetto”, as well as a number of Latvian Jewish women seamstresses, who were accommodated in two houses at Ludzas 68 - 70, which became known as the “Women’s Ghetto.” The arrivals from the Reich were placed in the “Large Ghetto”, now named the “German Ghetto.” The two ghettos were now quite separate, each with its own institutions, those of the “Small Ghetto” being headed by A.Kelman.

Although their eventual fate was never in doubt, to an extent the Jews of Riga had been murdered in order to make room from deportees from the Reich. It is considered most probable that in mid-September 1941, after much procrastination, Hitler tentatively approved of the deportation of the Jews of the Reich, a decision confirmed in early October. Their destinations were to be Lodz, Minsk, Kaunas (Kovno), and Riga. Between 27 November and 15 December 1941, 10 or 11 transports departed from Berlin, Nürnberg, München, Stuttgart, Wien, Hamburg, Köln, Kassel, and Düsseldorf for Riga. They were followed between 9 January and 21 February 1942 by another 10 or 11 transports from Terezin (Theresienstadt), Leipzig, Dortmund, Münster, and Dresden, as well as further transports from Berlin and Wien. It had been intended to deport 25,000 Reich Jews to Riga. In the event, the first five transports scheduled for that destination were rerouted to Kovno (Kaunas), so that the total number actually deported to Riga was 20,057. Only 3 - 4% of them were to survive.

The Ghetto Fence *

The first transport of German Jews from Berlin arrived in Riga on the morning of 30 November and were immediately killed at Rumbula. Himmler had ordered that the deportees be temporarily lodged in the space made available by the murder of Latvian Jews. Himmler telephoned Heydrich in Berlin at 1:30 p.m. on 30 November noting in his telephone log:
“Jewish transport from Berlin. No liquidation.”
It was too late; the Berlin Jews were already dead. The following day Himmler told Jeckeln:
“The Jews resettled in the Ostland are to be dealt with only according to the guidelines given by me or by the RSHA acting on my behalf. I will punish unilateral acts and violations.”
Thereafter, Jews from the Reich were settled in the Riga Ghetto or in the nearby camps of Salaspils and Jungfernhof, with two exceptions. The second transport from Terezin (Theresienstadt), departing on 15 January 1942, was liquidated on arrival. And the transport leaving Wien on 6 February was met by a gas van; 700 of the 1,000 deportees were immediately murdered. Among those on this transport was Gertrude Schneider, who recorded that the train was met by Lange, who had a little more than two weeks earlier had been present at the Wannsee Conference. Heydrich, impressed with the efficiency with which Lange had organised the slaughter of the Latvian Jews of Riga, had invited him to the conference. Lange told the arriving deportees that those “unwilling or unable” to walk the 7 km to the ghetto could make the journey on trucks which had been especially reserved for them. Gertrude Schneider’s account continues:
“It was an extremely cold day – forty-two degrees below zero to be exact – and so the majority of the hapless, unsuspecting Jews from Wien took his advice and lined up to board the trucks. They did not know that those greyish-blue trucks had been manufactured by the Saurer Works in Austria especially for the implementation of the `Final Solution.’ These trucks were the famous gas-vans, which were used from time to time despite the fact that the SS did not especially like them because they always had mechanical problems.”

One of more than 1,500 Jews deported from Wien on 11 January 1942 was Liana Neumann. She recalled:
“There was no water. The coaches were sealed, and we could not leave them. It was very cold, and we chipped off some ice from the windows to have water…(On reaching Riga) we were received by SS men, who made us run, and beat us up.”
Liana Neumann was sent to work in a hospital, where it was her job to disinfect the clothing of murdered Jews.

In an undated report of early 1942, Stahlecker outlined the condition of the Reich Jews:
“Of the Jews from the Reich only a small portion are capable of work. Some 70-80% are women and children as well as elderly persons incapable of work. The mortality rate is also climbing steadily, as a result of the extraordinarily harsh winter…In individual cases infectious Jews were separated and executed under the pretext of being sent to a Jewish old people’s home or hospital."
Within a few months 50% of the Reich Jews sent to Riga were dead.

According to Jeckeln, even in late January 1942, Himmler was still uncertain about how to kill the remaining Reich Jews in Riga. He told Jeckeln there would be further transports arriving but “that he had not yet decided in which way they were to be destroyed… to be shot in Salaspils or to be chased off somewhere into a swamp.”
Jeckeln replied that “shooting would be an easier and quicker death.”
Consequently, in February, and in particular on 26 March 1942, large selections took place in both Jungfernhof and the ghetto. Almost 3,000 people regarded as unfit for work fell victim to these selections. Under the pretext that they would be taken to a camp in Dünamünde (which did not actually exist), where the working conditions in a preserved food factory would supposedly be easier, the victims were transported to the mass graves in the woods of Bikernieki and executed.

Gertrude Schneider and her family were taken to Jungfernhof, where there were continual “selections.” She was present at the one that took place on 26 March 1942. The following day several trucks were unloaded in the ghetto:
“Their cargo was an assortment of personal effects of the people who had been resettled. There were clothes that had been taken off hurriedly by their owners – still turned inside out – stockings attached to girdles and shoes encrusted with mud. The trucks also yielded nursing bottles, children’s toys, eye-glasses, bags filled with food, and satchels containing photographs and documents…
...(As women worked at sorting the effects) they recognized many of the clothes, some by the names that had been sewn into them, some by the identity cards still in their pockets, and there were of course, dresses, coats, and suits which they had seen on their friends and neighbours when they had left the ghetto only a few days before…Soon everyone in the ghetto knew about the cargo that the trucks had brought and about the condition of the clothes. It did not take any great imagination to understand what had happened to their owners. No longer did anyone scoff at the tales of the Latvian Jews nor think that this could happen only to `Ostjuden’ [eastern European Jews] and never to the Jews from Germany. In many houses in the ghetto, `Kaddish’, the Hebrew prayer for the dead was recited. The German ghetto was plunged into despair.”

A number of discussions had occurred in Nazi circles in late October 1941 concerning the possible construction of an extermination camp in Riga. On 25 October, Ostministerium Jewish expert Erhard Wetzel drafted a letter for Rosenberg concerning conversations he had had with Viktor Brack of the Führer Chancellery and Adolf Eichmann of the RSHA. According to Wetzel, Brack was ready to aid in the construction of “gassing apparatuses” in Riga.
Brack offered to send his chemist, Dr. Kallmeyer, to Riga, where he would take care of everything. Eichmann had confirmed that camps were about to be set up in Riga and Minsk to receive the Reich Jews. Those capable of labour would be sent “to the east” later, but there would be no objections “if those Jews who are not fit for work are removed by Brack’s device.”
Wetzel testified that at their meeting, Brack had told him that this was “a question of a Führer order or a mandate of the Führer.”
In the event, Kallmeyer did not go to Riga. Instead, in mid-December 1941, two small Diamond gas vans and one large Saurer gas van were brought from Berlin to Riga for the use of the BdS there. According to the deposition of an official named Trühe, head of the supply section at BdS Riga, a total of six gas vans were eventually dispatched by the RSHA in Berlin to BdS Riga, of which at least one or probably two were utilised in Riga itself. Dr. August Becker, responsible for supervising the use of gas vans in occupied Soviet territory, saw one of these vehicles in Riga in June 1942. Another eyewitness, a Jew from Riga named Mendel Vulfovich testified:
“In February 1942, I saw with my own eyes 2,000 elderly Jews from Germany, men and women, being loaded into special gas vans. These vans were painted grey-green and had a large closed cargo compartment with hermetically sealed doors. All those inside were killed by gas.”

The Kommandantur

On 8 February 1942, 380 Jews from Kovno (Kaunas) were deported to Riga, to be followed by a further 300 on 24 October. Once again, an attempt was made to restore some semblance of normality to life in the ghetto; a clandestine grocery and bakery was set up, a school for the few remaining children was established and cultural events were organized. A resistance group was also established in the ghetto. At the beginning of 1942, the advocate Jewelson issued a slogan calling on the Jews to organize themselves. Small groups of fighters were created and the members of the resistance gathered weapons and food. Jewish women who worked as tailoresses in German factories smuggled German uniforms into the ghetto. The resistance groups were preparing to escape from the ghetto and to join units of Soviet partisans. Because of treason on the part of one Gestapo provocateur, all of the plans were discovered and monitored by the Germans.
On 28 October 1942, when a large group of fighters tried to escape from Riga, the Germans stopped their truck in the suburbs. All of the members of the group were killed during the ensuing battle – altogether, 105 people. Because the Gestapo knew that Jewish policemen were among the organizers of the resistance, they decided to take their revenge mainly on them. On 31 October, all Jews from the Small Ghetto were gathered for a selection. 108 Jews classified as unfit for work were shot. 39-40 Jewish policemen were executed at the courtyard of the commandant’s house. The entire resistance organisation had been liquidated by the Gestapo.

On 1 November 1942 the “Small Ghetto” was incorporated into the “German Ghetto". There was now a single ghetto divided into two sections: Section “R” for Jews from the Reich and section “L” for Latvian Jews. A joint ghetto council was established and the Ordnungsdienst unified into a single body. In the increasingly fraught atmosphere, many Jews began living at their place of work. Gradually, the ghetto emptied of its inhabitants. In the summer of 1943, some of the Jews still living in the ghetto were transferred to the Kaiserwald camp or to other labour camps in the region. That November, large-scale Aktionen were carried out in the ghetto and at the places where Jews were employed.

As the Soviet Army advanced towards Latvia in 1944, the Germans began Sonderkommando 1005 operations in the Riga area. In order to obliterate the evidence of the crimes that had been committed, Jewish prisoners were forced to exhume and cremate the corpses of victims at the killing sites. In April 1944 more than 500 Jewish women from Hungary were sent to Kaiserwald. In June 1944, when Soviet forces were already at the Latvian border, Aktionen took place in which many Jews of Kaiserwald and its satellite camps were killed. The remaining Jews were sent to concentration camps outside of Latvia, chiefly to Stutthof. It has been estimated that 15,000 prisoners were incarcerated at the Salaspils camp during its existence. Just 192 of them are known to have survived.

Not all Latvians were collaborators or bystanders. Several dozen Jews were sheltered by Yanis Lipke in a cave he had dug under his henhouse. In addition to providing shelter for the hidden Jews, Lipke smuggled food and medicine into the ghetto. He also found three other men to help him save the Jews of the nearby village of Dobele – Yanis Undulis, and the brothers Fritz and Yan Rosenthal. Two of the Dobele Jews were hidden in a haystack at Yan Rosenthal’s farm. Several more were hidden at a farm belonging to Fritz Rosenthal’s aunt, Wilhelmina Putrinia. Lipke was not finished. He rescued Isaak Dryzin, his brother and another man, Sheyenson, from the ghetto itself on Yom Kippur, 10 October 1943. Lipke took them to the nearest doorway, tore off their yellow stars, gave them peasants’ hats to put on, and drove them to the farm of another friend, where they were hidden in barns and haystacks. He told the Dryzin brothers:
“Tomorrow I will go to the ghetto again and will keep bringing people here every day.”
– which is exactly what he did.
Lipke had witnessed a brutal massacre of Jews on 1 December 1941 and resolved to do everything possible to save Jews from further atrocities. He left his job as a dockworker and joined a Luftwaffe civilian organisation so that he would be able to fetch Jews from the ghetto to work at Luftwaffe sites in and around Riga. He then arranged for trusted Latvian friends to fix Jewish badges to their coats and enter the ghetto, replacing the Jews who had been spirited away. In this way, the number of workers leaving and returning to the ghetto tallied. The following morning the Latvians removed the badges and left the ghetto together with other Latvian contractors. Lipke would visit labour camps in the Riga area, providing some of the prisoners with jewellery and money that had been left in his care by the relatives of imprisoned Jews for the purpose of bribing guards. He devised a plan to smuggle Jews across the Baltic to Sweden, and prepared a boat for that purpose, but the authorities’ suspicions became aroused, and the idea had to be abandoned. Lipke and members of his family continued to rescue Jews for almost three years, from December 1941 to October 1944. In recognition of his outstanding heroism, Lipke and his wife Johanna were was recognized as a “Righteous Among the Nations” by Yad Vashem.

The Soviet Army liberated Riga on 13 October 1944. A few days later 152 surviving Jews, including a few children, emerged from their hiding places and were taken by the NKVD (precursor of the KGB) for interrogation. The NKVD asked them only one question – how had they survived? The Russians suspected them of collaboration with the Germans. In addition, those survivors who organized a commemorative ceremony at the Jewish cemetery were under suspicion. Many of the survivors were arrested and deported to Siberia. Among them were German Jews who had survived the occupation in Riga. Under Soviet rule, for many years the mass executions sites in Rumbula and Bikernieki Forests were the forgotten places of the Holocaust. Even when memorials were built, Jews from Riga could not organize official commemorative events there.

About 600 Jews had survived in the whole of Latvia, with a further 400 Latvian Jews surviving in German concentration camps. In the post-war years, the authorities encouraged citizens from other regions of the Soviet Union to settle in Riga. Today (2005) there are an estimated 9,000 Jewish inhabitants of the city out of a total population of 800,000. Memorials were erected to the victims of Rumbula in 1962, and to those of the Bikernieki Forest in 2001. The Salaspils Memorial Park was opened on 31 October 1967. The most recent memorial at Kaiserwald was dedicated on 29 June 2005. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Latvia regained its independence in 1991, and in 2004 became a member of both NATO and the European Union.

Trials and Retribution:

In 1919, Herberts Cukurs was a Bolshevik sympathizer. In independent Latvia he became famous as a pilot. Between 1924 and 1936 he designed and constructed a number of airplanes, and in 1933-1934 he flew from Riga to Gambia and back in one of his own planes, the C-3 (Gambia in West Africa, had been a colony of the Duke of Kurland in the 17th century). Two years later he flew from Riga to Tokyo. He also visited Palestine, and his reports of the visit were coloured with strong anti-Semitism. As soon as the German army entered Riga, Cukurs joined those who were shooting Jews. At the end of 1941 he personally participated in the shootings in Riga's Ghetto and Rumbula, killing infants and dancing with joy by the graves. After the war Cukurs found refuge in Brazil, running a boat and plane rental service on the Rio de Janeiro beach, and later owned a banana plantation. On 24 February 1965, he was killed in Uruguay's capital, Montevideo, by members of a group called “Those Who Do Not Forget.” It is said that they were agents of Mossad, the Israeli secret service.

Rosenberg was arraigned before the IMT at Nürnberg, found guilty on all counts and executed on 16 October 1946; Lohse was arrested in 1945, sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1948, but released in 1951 on the grounds of ill health. He died in 1964. Stahlecker was killed in 1942 in a battle with Soviet partisans; Sandberger was sentenced to life imprisonment by a U.S. tribunal in 1948, but released in 1953; Batz committed suicide in 1961 whilst on remand; Strauch was sentenced to death by hanging at the Einsatzgruppen trial, extradited to Belgium and condemned to death again. The execution was stayed because of insanity. Lange is believed to have been killed in the battle for Poznan (Posen) in 1945; Jeckeln was tried in Riga, sentenced to death on 3 February 1946 and hanged that afternoon. Brack was a defendant in The Medical Case at Nürnberg, was sentenced to death by a U.S. tribunal and executed in 1948.

DDR
Case Nr.1015
Crime Category: Denunciation, Other Mass Extermination Crimes, Other NS-Crimes
Accused:
Steins, Stanislavs Life Sentence
Court:
LG/BG Potsdam 791001
Ob. Gericht der DDR 791207
Country where the crime was committed: Latvia
Crime Location: Riga
Crime Date: 4107-4112
Victims: Civilians, Jews
Nationality: Latvian
Office: Lettische Sicherheitshilfspolizei (Latvian Auxiliary Security Police) Riga, Ordnungsdienst (Order Police) Riga
Subject of the proceeding: Denunciation of Latvian students who had been members of the Communist Party. They were arrested and a number of them were killed. Arrest and guarding of Jewish men who were forced to clear the war damage during the early days of July 1941. Arrest of Jewish business owners. Arrest and shooting of communist officials and activists in the Bikernieki Forest near Riga. Participation in the killing of altogether 1,000 Jewish inmates of the Riga prison in the course of 10 execution operations by securing the transports to the execution sites and as member of several execution squads. Participation in the liquidation of the Riga Ghetto - in the course of which 27,000 Jews were shot - by leading the victims to the execution site in the Rumbula Forest. Shooting of ten Jews who had collapsed during the march from the ghetto to the execution site.
BRD (Western Germany)
Case Nr.307
Crime Category: NS-Crimes in Detainment Centers
Accused:
Migge, Kurt Richard Rudolf life sentence
R., Rudolf Wilhelm Erich Acquittal
Seck, Rudolf Joachim life sentence
T., Otto Heinrich 1 Year 8 Months
Court:
LG Hamburg 511229
Country where the crime was committed: Latvia
Crime Location: Riga, HS AEL Salaspils, HS KL Olai, HS KL Schlock, HS KL Gut Jungfernhof (Jumpravas Muiza)
Crime Date: 42-43
Victims: Jews
Nationality: German, Latvian, unknown
Office: Polizei Sipo Riga, Haftstättenpersonal AEL Salaspils, Haftstättenpersonal KL Gut Jungfernhof
Subject of the proceeding: Selection and transportation of Jews from the Riga Ghetto to the nearby woods, where they were subsequently shot. Shooting of 40 Jewish-Latvian order policemen in the Riga Ghetto after the discovery of a hidden weapons depot. Mishandling and shooting of members from the Jewish labour commandos from the Riga Ghetto and of Jewish prisoners from AEL Salaspils. Shooting of prisoners from the labour commando Olai, of KL Gut Jungfernhof, as well as of KL Schlock. Selection of about 3,500 Jewish prisoners of KL Gut Jungfernhof (prisoners unfit for work and ill prisoners, as well as mothers with children) within the context of the extermination action 'Dünamünde'
Case Nr. 701
Crime Category: Other Mass Extermination Crimes
Accused:
Helfsgott, Walter Ernst Acquittal
Kir., Fritz Karl Acquittal
Soh., Hans Friedrich 4 Years
Zie., Fritz Otto Karl 2 1/2 Years
Court:
LG Stuttgart 690313
BGH 710817
Country where the crime was committed: Latvia, CIS
Crime Location: Kiev (Babi-Yar ravine), Uman, Kamenez-Podolsk, Nikolajew, Zamocz, Belaja Zerkow, Woskresenskoje, Riga
Crime Date: 44
Victims: Jews, prisoners
Nationality: Soviet, unknown
Office: Sonderkommando 1005A, Sonderkommando 1005B
Subject of the proceeding: Shooting of - mostly Jewish - prisoners put to work on the exhumation sites of the mass graves at the Babi-Yar ravine near Kiev, at Uman, Kamenez-Podolsk, Nikolajew, Zamocz, Belaja-Zerkow, Woskresenskoje and in and around Riga
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.789
Tatkomplex: Andere Massenvernichtungsverbrechen
Angeklagte:
Die., Emil von Strafe abgesehen (§47 MStGB)
Jah., Friedrich Urteil vom BGH aufgehoben, dann verhandlungsunfähig
Neu., Max von Strafe abgesehen (§47 MStGB)
Tuchel, Otto lebenslänglich
Gerichtsentscheidungen:
LG Hamburg 730223
BGH 740709
Tatland: Lettland
Tatort: Riga
Tatzeit: 4112
Opfer: Juden
Nationalität: Lettische
Dienststelle: Polizei Pol.Btl.21
Verfahrensgegenstand: Liquidierung des Rigaer Ghettos. Erschießung von mindestens 25,000 lettischen Juden im Wald von Rumbuli
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.820
Tatkomplex: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen durch Einsatzgruppen
Angeklagte:
Bes., Arno von Strafe abgesehen (§47 MStGB)
Trü., Heinz Georg Theodor Freispruch
Gerichtsentscheidungen:
LG Hamburg 750311
Tatland: Lettland
Tatort: Riga
Tatzeit: 4107
Opfer: Juden, Zivilisten
Nationalität: Lettische
Dienststelle: Einsatzgruppen EK2
Verfahrensgegenstand: Erschießungen von jüdischen und nicht-jüdischen Letten durch das EK 2, sowie durch Letten unter Beteiligung des EK 2
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.843
Tatkomplex: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen durch Einsatzgruppen
Angeklagte:
May., Gerhard Kurt 4 Jahre
Gerichtsentscheidungen:
LG Hamburg 770802
Tatland: Lettland
Tatort: HS KL Gut Jungfernhof (Jumpravas Muiza), HS AEL Salaspils, Riga
Tatzeit: 420102, 420130, 420205, 4203
Opfer: Juden
Nationalität: Deutsche, Lettische, Österreichische, unbekannt
Dienststelle: Einsatzgruppen EG A, Polizei Sipo Riga
Verfahrensgegenstand: Selektion von Wiener und Berliner Juden im Rigaer Ghetto, die anschliessend in der Nähe Rigas erschossen wurden. Massenerschießung von mindestens 2,000 arbeitsunfähigen Juden in Riga und von mindestens 4,000 arbeitsunfähigen Juden auf dem Gut Jungfernhof. Einzelerschießung von Juden im AEL Salaspils wegen mangelnder Arbeitsleistung oder nach einem Fluchtversuch
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.856
Tatkomplex: Andere Massenvernichtungsverbrechen
Angeklagte:
Arajs, Viktor Bernhard lebenslänglich
Gerichtsentscheidungen:
LG Hamburg 791221
Tatland: Lettland
Tatort: Riga
Tatzeit: 411208
Opfer: Juden
Nationalität: Lettische
Dienststelle: Polizei Lettische Hilfspolizei Riga ('Kommando Arajs')
Verfahrensgegenstand: Massenerschießung der im Großen Ghetto von Riga lebenden Juden im Wald von Rumbula
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.883
Tatkomplex: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen durch Einsatzgruppen
Angeklagte:
Tol., Karl 3 1/2 Jahre
Gerichtsentscheidungen

30-06-2010 om 23:12 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 2/5 - (2 Stemmen)
Categorie:Een uitgesproken "Grr#!!♪♫@||#♫♪☻"-Kitokojungle-Opinie !!

http://pr.euractiv.com/press-release/european-smart-metering-industry-group%E2%80%99s-rapid-growth-reflects-industry-interest-smart

European Smart Metering Industry Group’s rapid growth reflects industry interest in smart metering

published by ESMIG on Friday 25 Jun 2010

ESMIG completes its 2010 General Assembly by welcoming 12 new members

25 June 2010 – Brussels The European Smart Metering Industry Group (ESMIG) held its annual General Assembly this week in Brussels welcoming twelve new member companies.Since its founding two years ago with 5 members, ESMIG has rapidly grown over six-fold in membership. This growth not only reflects the increasing importance of smart metering, but also the recognition of ESMIG as the voice of the smart metering industry in Europe.
Andreas Umbach, who was recently re-elected President of the group, says “ESMIG’s growth in the last couple of years has been nothing short of tremendous. This increase with such premier companies reflects not only the importance of smart metering generally, but is also the result of the excellent work being done by the ESMIG secretariat and the association’s members.”
ESMIG was formed in 2008 with a core membership covering the emerging smart metering industry in Europe. Membership has now expanded to 32 and covers the majority of manufacturers of electricity, gas, water and heat metering equipment in Europe. Other members cover Wide Area, Local Area and Home Area Networks for metering systems and member related interests in system integration, smart grids and smart housing. As the voice of the industry, ESMIG covers the entire smart metering value chain.
As of 1 July 2010 the following companies are ESMIG members: ABB, Accenture, Cinterion Wireless Modules, Diehl Metering, Echelon, Elgama-Elektronika, Elster, EMH, EnergyICT, Görlitz, Hager, IBM, Iskraemeco, Itron, Janz, Kamstrup, Landis+Gyr, Navetas, Oracle, Prolan, Sagemcom, SAP, Secure Meters, Sensus, Siemens, Sierra Wireless, Sigma Telas, StreamServe, Telit Wireless Solutions, Toshiba TRL, Vodafone and ZIV.
In line with the increase in its membership, ESMIG’s involvement in European standardisation and policy discussions has also expanded. The industry group is actively involved in the European smart metering standardisation mandate, M/441, where it is chairing the Smart Metering Coordination Group’s ad-hoc working group on communications. Furthermore, ESMIG is represented in all groups of the European Commission’s Smart Grids Task Force and there chairs the data security and protection expert group.
ESMIG also has a number of association and cooperation agreements throughout the industry with partners such as CEN, CENELEC, DLMS, ETSI, KNX, OPEN meter and ZigBee Alliance. ESMIG membership is open to any supplier of smart metering or advanced metering goods and services to utilities in the European Union.

About ESMIG
The European Smart Metering Industry Group (ESMIG) is the European industry association that provides knowledge and expertise on Smart Metering and related communications at a European level. ESMIG's members are the leading companies in the European Smart Metering Market: meter manufacturers, IT companies and system integrators. ESMIG covers all aspects of Smart Metering, including electricity, gas, water and heat measurement. Member companies cover the entire value chain from meter manufacturing, software, installation and consulting to communications and system integration. By giving support to European Union Institutions, Member States and Standardisation Organisations, the industry group aims to assist in the development of national and European-wide introduction, roll-out and management of Smart Metering solutions.

Recently ESMIG has been recognised as an Official Partner of the Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign: www.sustenergy.org

For further information contact:

ESMIG Secretariat

Phone: +32 2 7068257, Fax: +32 2 7068253

Email: secretariat@esmig.eu

European Smart Metering Industry Group

Boulevard A. Reyers 80, 1030 Brussels, Belgium

www.esmig.eu

http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/features/uk/does-the-business-case-for-sma.php

Does the business case for smart metering stack up?

Written by: Will Siddall | 18 June 2010

Uplifting: £17 billion benefits vs £9 billion cost

International comparisons and research back up government figures suggesting the benefits of smart meters far outweigh their costs, says Will Siddall.

In the next decade every home and small business in Britain will have smart gas and electricity meters installed. The plan is the result of a business case produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) which forecasts that over the next 20 years the project will cost in excess of £9 billion, and deliver benefits of more than £17 billion.

This seems to be exactly the kind of investment Britain needs right now - an economically advantageous long-term investment in critical infrastructure, helping the country move to a more sustainable low-carbon future. But is the business case convincing enough? Are the proposed costs and benefits consistent with experiences elsewhere in the world? Who should foot the up-front bill? And is it possible to make the business case for smart metering even more compelling?

£9.2bn official cost estimate

It is widely accepted that installing smart meters will be expensive. Government estimates are that this will cost £9.2 billion over the next 20 years, and two-thirds of this relates to the very visible components of the deployment - the purchasing and installation of meters and communications infrastructure. The remainder covers new operating costs, the cost of the change programme, and inefficiencies from operating smart and traditional meters in parallel during deployment.

To consider whether these estimates are reasonable, Britain can draw on the experiences of other markets, where millions of smart meters have been or are currently being installed. IBM's analysis of 27 smart metering projects in North America shows that the up-front costs for deployments delivering a similar scope to that proposed for Britain range from £102 to £242 per meter. This covers the purchase and installation of the meter and communication assets, IT changes and project management. The estimate for Britain is £139 per meter.

This appears sensible. Britain has complexities such as indoor metering, which will increase costs, but also opportunities to be more efficient - such as deploying smart gas and electricity meters simultaneously. Britain should also reap the benefits of expected decreases in smart meter component costs, which IBM analysis shows as falling by 5-10 per cent each year.

Detailed cost assumptions robust

In a similar manner it is possible to compare the detailed cost assumptions made. For example, Decc has assumed a purchase cost of £56 per smart gas meter. This is a conservative estimate compared with the £43 per meter Italy has assumed for its planned deployment of smart gas meters with similar functionality, due to commence in 2012. Further comparisons reveal similar answers - Decc's assumptions appear robust, with a slight overall tendency towards being ­conservative.

These analyses show that both the overall and detailed cost estimates for Britain appear reasonable and are consistent with other global deployments. Therefore the key question should no longer be, "are the cost estimates correct?" but instead, "are there sufficient benefits to justify the cost?"

£17.4bn official benefits estimate

The government has identified £17.4 billion of expected benefits from smart metering over the coming two decades, the lion's share of which comes from operational efficiency improvements for suppliers, consumer energy reductions, and carbon savings.
Smart meters enable consumption to be read remotely and with much greater accuracy.

For suppliers this should mean reduced manual meter reading costs, and reduced costs associated with having fewer estimated and inaccurate bills. It should also no longer ever be necessary to replace the meter when a customer changes supplier or moves on to a prepayment tariff.

Hard efficiency benefits such as these are estimated at more than £5 billion. Experience from elsewhere is that these benefits are achievable. Enel in Italy has publicly stated that it has seen a "dramatic reduction in cash-cost per customer", with operational savings of €49 per customer per year - more than four times the forecast British savings.

Will consumer behaviour change?

Integral to the smart metering benefits case is the premise that providing customers with more accurate and timely information will result in behaviour change: consumers using less energy and shifting consumption to times when power is cheaper and greener. This should help save money in the short term and reduce the level of generation and network asset investment required in the future. The British business case assumes a reduction in domestic energy consumption of 2.8 per cent. This is consistent, even slightly conservative, when compared with publicly available data such as analysis by the US Pacific North West National Laboratory (PNNL). This estimates a 6 per cent reduction.

There is, however, a question mark about the longevity of changes in consumer behaviour, so provision of better information must be seen as a first step. To ensure that the full potential benefits are realised, effective consumer incentivisation through cost-reflective tariffs and smart devices which consume energy in a more intelligent way are necessary future steps.

When such changes are put in place, the benefits can increase significantly. A pilot project run by PNNL integrating smart meters with smart devices and smart grids delivered reductions of 15 per cent in peak power demand and 10 per cent in consumer energy bills.

Benefits achievable

So it would seem that the expected benefits are achievable; conservative when compared with other deployments; and sufficient to justify the costs of introducing smart metering in Britain.

Perhaps the subject that has attracted the most column inches is who should pay for smart metering. Really, this is not the right question, because while the benefits to energy suppliers will cover some costs, ultimately most costs will be borne by the consumer. The right questions to ask are: who should finance the programme, and how and when should any costs not paid for by supplier benefits be passed on to consumers?

Cost recovery from customers

Again, this is an area where Britain can learn from other markets, such as Ontario. Here, the regulator considered three payment options - general taxation, up-front consumer payment, and financing with tariff-based recovery from consumers. They chose a tariff recovery model. For Britain, payment through taxation is inconsistent with a competitive utilities market, and asking consumers for up-front payment would be unpalatable and hard to enforce. It is therefore reasonable to assume a similar solution in Britain - industry paying the bill with recovery over time from consumers.

Nine billion pounds is a hefty bill for industry to foot, especially at a time of huge investment in areas such as nuclear power and renewables. This raises the likelihood of new investors being required. Attracting this investment should be achievable, but key to attracting finance at reasonable rates will be ensuring that the investment is seen as low risk. This will require a clear long-term industry plan, a stable and agreed functional specification, commercial meter interoperability and regulatory stability.

Of course, even a great business case does not always translate into a successful project that enables the benefits originally envisaged. Success is dependent on recognising and acting now in key areas to minimise cost and risk, and maximise benefits.

Timing

One of the most significant assumptions made is the timing of deployment. Any delay to the expected 2013 start date will significantly reduce the benefits achieved. This requires an efficient and effective change programme with a strong central industry design function. Actions can also be taken to accelerate the deployment start date - for example, defining the meter specification now.

Once rollout has commenced, targets must be set that ensure suppliers do not delay deployment. Furthermore, Britain should be more aggressive in its deployment timescales. IBM analysis of 48 global deployments shows a typical duration of four to six years, and that additional net benefits of more than £1 billion could be achieved if the British deployment was delivered in five years, not eight as proposed. Achieving this would require delivery excellence from suppliers, and appropriate incentives (and penalties) for them to install in those timeframes - but again, this is nothing that has not already been achieved elsewhere.

Consumer engagement

Imperative to efficient deployment and achieving enduring energy and carbon savings is effective consumer engagement. Government rightly identifies the value of consumer awareness campaigns and real-time energy displays in achieving this, but more is needed. Crucially, there must be greater awareness of the differences in behaviour among consumers. For example, IBM research shows that 27 per cent of consumers say that neither money nor environmental concerns will make them change their consumption of energy. Would installing a real-time energy display in these customers' homes deliver any benefit? Conversely, 22 per cent of consumers want to take actions to change their energy usage, but are constrained by their available income. Should smart meter deployment target these customers first?

If energy retailers in Britain are to see engagement with all consumer segments, they will need a range of approaches, from providing real-time consumption information to those who want to become engaged, to embedding energy management intelligence in the consumer goods of those who have neither the time nor inclination to change their consumption behaviour.

Finally, the opportunity for smart metering to act as a catalyst for improvements in the structure and processes of the utilities industry must not be overlooked. Changes such as harmonising gas and electricity processes and data flows, improving the time it takes for a customer to change supplier, and ensuring infrastructure is able to support future smart water meters, are all changes that should be recognised now, even if they are delivered in a later phase of work.

So, does this business case for smart metering stack up? The answer has to be yes. The responsibility on government and the utilities industry now is to deliver, and deliver quickly.

Will Siddall is advanced analytics & optimisation leader, energy & utilities industry, IBM Global Business Services™

29-06-2010 om 23:11 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Naomi Klein

Award-winning journalist and author of The Shock Doctrine

Posted: June 28, 2010 11:58 AM

My city feels like a crime scene, and the criminals are all melting into the night, fleeing the scene. No, I'm not talking about the kids in black who smashed windows and burned cop cars on Saturday.

I'm talking about the heads of state who, on Sunday night, smashed social safety nets and burned good jobs in the middle of a recession. Faced with the effects of a crisis created by the world's wealthiest and most privileged strata, they decided to stick the poorest and most vulnerable people in their countries with the bill.

How else can we interpret the G20's final communique, which includes not even a measly tax on banks or financial transactions, yet instructs governments to slash their deficits in half by 2013. This is a huge and shocking cut, and we should be very clear who will pay the price: students who will see their public educations further deteriorate as their fees go up; pensioners who will lose hard earned benefits; public sector workers whose jobs will be eliminated. And the list goes on. These types of cuts have already begun in many G20 countries including Canada, and they are about to get a lot worse. For instance, reducing the projected 2010 deficit in the U.S. by half, in the absence of a sizeable tax increase, would mean a whopping $780-billion cut.

They are happening for a simple reason. When the G20 met in London in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the leaders failed to band together to regulate the financial sector so that this type of crisis would never happen again. All we got was empty rhetoric, and an agreement to put trillions of dollars in public monies on the table to shore up the banks around the world. Meanwhile, the U.S. government did little to keep people in their homes and jobs, so in addition to hemorrhaging public money to save the banks, the tax base collapsed, creating an entirely predictable debt and deficit crisis.

At this weekend's summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced his fellow leaders that it simply wouldn't be fair to punish those banks that behaved well and did not create the crisis (despite the fact that Canada's highly protected banks are consistently profitable and could easily absorb a tax). Yet, somehow, these leaders had no such concerns about fairness when they decided to punish blameless individuals for a crisis created by derivative traders and absentee regulators.

Last week, the Globe and Mail ran a fascinating article about the origins of the G20. It turns out the entire concept was conceived in a meeting back in 1999 between then Finance Minister Paul Martin and his U.S. counterpart Lawrence Summers (itself interesting since Summers was, at that time playing a central role in creating the conditions for this financial crisis, allowing a wave of bank consolidation and refusing to regulate derivatives).

The two men wanted to expand the G7, but only to countries they considered strategic and safe. They needed to make a list but apparently they didn't have paper handy. So, according to reporters John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, "the two men grabbed a brown manila envelope, put it on the table between them, and began sketching the framework of a new world order." Thus was born the G20.

The story is a good reminder that history is shaped by human decisions, not natural laws. Summers and Martin changed the world with the decisions they scrawled on the back on that envelope. But there is nothing to say that citizens of G20 countries need to take orders from this handpicked club.

Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece, often marching under the slogan "We won't pay for your crisis." And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet their respective budget shortfalls.

Many are calling for a financial transaction tax that would slow down hot money and raise new money for social programs and climate change. Others are calling for steep taxes on polluters that would underwrite the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change and moving away from fossil fuels. And ending losing wars is always a good cost saver.

The G20 is an ad-hoc institution with none of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Since it just tried to stick us with a huge bill for a crisis most of us had no hand in creating, I say we take a cue from Martin and Summers. Flip it over, and write on the back of the envelope: Return to sender.

29-06-2010 om 00:18 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever