Gerard Groten, chair of SPF, said that ever stricter local and European legislation were the main reason for the merger.Peter-Paul Witte, SPOV’s chair, emphasised the close link between both sectors, and noted that the merger would boost labour mobility.Both pension funds said the merger was supported by their respective accountability body, supervisory board (RvT) as well as trade unions and employers.A funding difference is unlikely to be in the way of a merger, as the coverage ratio of SPF and SPOV stood at 109.4% and 107.1%, respectively, at September-end.In their respective annual reports for 2018, the asset owners said the merged scheme must carry out its administration in house as of 2021.SPF Beheer is to merge with the new pension fund and will be liquidated subsequently. The €18bn Dutch pension fund for the railways sector (SPF) and the €5bn scheme for public transport (SPOV) announced they would merge as of 1 April.The new pension fund, Rail en Openbaar Vervoer, based on its assets, is to become the 13th largest scheme in the Netherlands, with 100,000 participants, affiliated with 90 employers.The announcement came after both schemes said they were discussing a potential merger for a second time last year.Earlier merger talks collapsed in 2016 because of issues such as different board culture, insufficient faith in the joint pensions provider and asset manager SPF Beheer, as well as disappointing results on cost saving.
Posted on March 5, 2014November 14, 2016By: Leilani Hastings, Conference Coordinator, Maternal Health Task Force, Women and Health InitiativeClick to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Last week, BMC International Health and Human Rights published an article by Hammonds and Ooms entitled, “The emergence of a global right to health norm – the unresolved care of universal access to quality emergency obstetric care.”They researched peer-reviewed articles and conducted interviews with key informants involved in the maternal, sexual and reproductive health communities, and found that the movement of maternal health as a priority has only seen gains in the most recent two decades, especially in relation to its involvement in the MDGs, and that in order to become a larger movement, the message of the field needs to be modified.Hammonds and Ooms found that fractured but intertwining agendas—such as sexual and reproductive health, maternal mortality reduction, family planning, emergency obstetric care (EmOC) and skilled attendants at birth—have caused problems in uniting the movement. Also fractured were the movements for different medical interventions, with EmOC failing to gain the attention that skilled attendants and contraceptives commanded.The authors compared the maternal health case to the HIV/AIDS experience, showing how it also had multiple branches with different agendas that each deserved a voice at the podium. The authors described three levels that the maternal health field needs to improve:maternal mortality is a health right that needs to be respected and addressed by all (including policy makers);the field needs to offer a more all-encompassing approach to include multiple facets of shared policies and program;and finally funding needs to be demanded from key players and used with appropriate accountability and oversight.Share this: ShareEmailPrint To learn more, read: