Three-quarters of a million tourists flock to the white beaches every year, but this booming industry has come at a price. Poisonous smoke rising from open fires, rubbish made up of plastic bottles，packets…”,it’s a far cry from the white sands, clear waters and palm trees that we associate with the Maldives(马尔代夫）,the paradise island holiday destination set in the Indian Ocean.

Of its 200 inhabited islands,which are spread across an area of 35,000 square miles,99 are good resorts (旅游胜地).So many tourists come every year, more than double the local population. Of these, over 1 00,000 travel from the UK. The capital，Male，is four times more densely populated than London. Given these facts, it’s hardly surprising that the Maldives has a waste disposal problem.

Years ago，when the tourists left，the government had to deal with a stream of rubbish. Their solution was to turn one of the islands into a dumping ground. Four miles west of Male is the country’s dumping ground, Thilafushi. What you are seeing here is a view of the Maldives on which no honeymooners would like to clap eyes. Each visitor produces 3.5 kg of waste per day. The country dumps more than 330 tons of rubbish on the island every day.

Now, since many waste boats, tired of waiting seven hours or more, directly offload then goods into the sea, the government of the Maldives has banned the dumping of waste on the k land. So,the waste boats ship the rubbish to India instead.

Do companies need a strong leader to stay competitive? Many would say “yes, definitely”, but the employees of one Swedish software consultancy company would tell them otherwise. They don’t have a CEO. Nobody tells anyone what to do, instead, all the 40 employees have meetings and decide together.

Crisp has become world famous for not having a boss. Hoping to get its employees more involved, it moved on to change its chief executive officer (CEO) annually, but ultimately, the 40-strong staff decided to scrap the position altogether.

Well, it turns out that not having a boss, and being involved in decision making has made Crisp’s 40 employees more responsible and motivated. And even if someone does make a bad call at some point, it’s definitely not the end of the world.

According to the BBC, the unique Swedish company is apparently set up more like a family – nobody tells anyone what to do, but the unspoken understanding is that “you don’t mess up the house”.

Crisp does hold four-day meetings for the whole staff two or three times a year, when they decide on things that affect everyone, like changing their headquarters, but generally, company employees are encouraged to make their own decisions. They also have a company board, a legal requirement in Sweden, which acts as a last resort, in case something goes horribly wrong.

So far, the “no CEO” experiment has gone surprisingly well. Henrik Kniberg, an organizational coach at Crisp, claims that not having to ask the boss to approve project decisions or budgets means that things happen a lot faster and the company can respond to clients quicker.

However, Kniberg stresses that not having to ask the CEO’s permission about stuff doesn’t remove employees’ responsibility to consult with their colleagues and explain their decisions. However, some CEOs believe that the idea only works in small startups, because it would be too chaotic（混乱的）in large organizations.

Now the Bush team is pushing hard an idea which is inherited from the Clinton administration and which, in some way, builds on the debt-relief initiative. For the very poorest countries, America strongly favors moving from loans   to   grants,   though   other   industrial-country donors are still doubtful of the wisdom of this. Giving grants, they argue, will cut future aid flows because some of the funding for loans on generous terms comes from money which has been repaid to donors.

America takes the view that, since many developing—country loans will never be repaid, mainly because the recipients cannot afford to make large payments to their creditors, it makes more sense to treat them as grants in the first place. The Bush administration has threatened to hold up the provision of the funds used for this sort of aid. International Development Assistance (IDA), if it cannot persuade everyone else to come on board. All members talked about having made progress in this area, but it remains a stumbling block.

Work is also under way in the IMF and the G7 to reform the international financial system. This now has two objectives.   One is to make it harder for terrorist organizations to obtain   funding by cracking down on money—laundering and increasing financial   transparency.   The other is to reduce the occurrence and severity of financial crises in emerging—market countries. On this,   American views seem to have prevailed.     The G7 meeting on April 19th and 20th     ended with an unexpected decision to proceed with an American plan to include collective action clauses in future loans taken out by emerging- market governments.   The idea is that in the event of a delay of payment—such as that by Argentina last December--a government could negotiate with a “super-majority” of its creditors to restructure its   debts,     rather than, as now,     have a     small minority of creditors able to weaken such attempts.

This market--based approach is still controversial and implementing it could be difficult given the previous reluctance of governments to include such clauses in loan contracts (lest they appear to be signaling a readiness to default   (拖欠)even as they borrow).   Work on IMF plans for more far —reaching reforms of supreme debt, on which the Bush team recently appeared to pour cold water, is to proceed at the same time. The two approaches, said the G7, are “complementary”.