Negotiation between Ecuador and Peru to end the border conflict in 1998

    
A Personal Account by Jamil Mahuad, Former President of Ecuador 
    
A fifty-year boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru ended through the successful negotiation between Jamil Mahuad, president of Ecuador (1998–2000), and Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru (1990–2000).
President Mahuad has taken two negotiation courses at Harvard University—one several years ago with Roger and a seminar more recently with Roger and Dan that explicitly articulated the core concerns framework. During our seminar, President Mahuad realized the extent to which he intuitively had used the core concerns to help resolve the Peru–Ecuador border dispute. We invited him to contribute this chapter to share with readers his creative use of those concerns. 

I took office as president of Ecuador on August 10, 1998, after serving six years as mayor of Quito, my country’s capital.
The main motivation for entering the presidential race was to alleviate poverty and to reduce inequality in my Nevada-sized Andean country of 12 million people. My political strategy was to replicate at a national level the successful formula that I had used while mayor of Quito’s 1.2 million people. My formula was: “Promise attainable projects, deliver on my promises, and stay close to the people.” While I was mayor, Fortune magazine considered Quito one of the ten Latin American cities that greatly improved the quality of life of its citizens.
As I took office, however, the Ecuadorian economy was spiraling into— arguably—its worst economic crisis of the twentieth century.
Simultaneously, political, military, and diplomatic experts foresaw an imminent and perhaps unavoidable new armed conflict with Peru.

THE PERFECT STORM

If you have read The Perfect Storm or have seen the movie based on the book, you’ll have the right mind-set to understand Ecuador’s situation in 1998 and 1999. The film depicts how, in October 1991, the unique combination of three immense meteorological events produced a storm stronger than any in recorded history. A hurricane from the Caribbean and two fronts from Canada and the Great Lakes converged and fed each other in the Atlantic. The storm trapped a small fishing boat from Gloucester, Massachusetts, and doomed its entire crew.
Here’s where the analogy comes through. In 1998–1999, Ecuador was suffering from the once-in-a-century combined effects of: 

- The coastal destruction left by El Niño floods (the largest in five hundred years) 

- Record low-level oil prices (oil then accounted for around half of the Ecuadorian exports and the government’s revenue) 

- The Asian economic crisis (the first global economic crisis) 

These factors came on top of a fiscal deficit of 7 percent of the GDP; the final puffings of a crashing financial system; and a physically destroyed and paralyzed private sector. The inflation rate was 48 percent and the debt to GDP ratio was more than 70 percent—both the highest in Latin America.
Consequently, international creditors—mistrusting Ecuador’s capacity for servicing its debt—were demanding full repayment of loans at maturity and closing their lines of credit.
This economic meltdown demanded immediate attention. My top shortterm priorities were to reduce the fiscal deficit and consequently decrease the inflation rate; to reconstruct the Pacific coastal area of the country recently devastated by the flood; and to restore the country’s credit worthiness through a program with the International Monetary Fund that would get new financing for my social programs, mainly health and education.
Nevertheless, an unexpected twist in the international front forced me to change priorities and work first to avoid a war with Peru. I considered this situation to be my first and most important responsibility morally, ethically, and economically. An international war would have escalated our already critical situation into a desperate one. How could Ecuador face an international war with the economy already in shambles? I needed a definitive peace accord with Peru in order to reduce the military budget, to dedicate our scarce resources to invest in social infrastructure, and to focus our attention and energies on growth and development.

THE CURRENT SITUATION 

The long, tough, disappointing history of armed conflict with Peru represented for Ecuadorians a painful wound. Ecuadorians felt abused, stripped of their legitimate territories by the force of a powerful neighbor supported by the international community.
Here was the scenario the moment I took office: 

- “The oldest armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere.”

The United States State Department called the Ecuador–Peru border dispute the “oldest armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere.” Its roots can be traced back at least to the discovery of the Amazon River in 1542 by the Spanish conquistador Francisco de Orellana or, even before that, to the 1532 precolonial Indian war for the control of the Inca Empire between the Quiteño Atahualpa (now Ecuador) and the Cusqueño Huascar (now Peru).

- The largest land dispute in Latin America. 

The territory historically claimed by both Ecuador and Peru was bigger than France. It constituted the largest disputed territory in Latin America and one of the largest in the world.

- Numerous attempts to resolve the conflict had failed. 

Since the early nineteenth century attempts to reach a solution consistently failed. The countries had tried war, direct conversation, and amicable intervention by third parties, mediation, and first-class arbiters including the King of Spain and President Franklin Roosevelt. None yielded a positive result.
The last period of this conflict started in 1942. After an international war between Ecuador and Peru in mid-1941 and following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States pressed Ecuador and Peru to end definitively their land dispute. In 1942 in Rio de Janeiro, the two countries signed a treaty called the Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Limits. Known in short as the Rio Protocol, this treaty was guaranteed by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United States.
The Rio Protocol established that part of the boundary between Ecuador and Peru would be a watershed (a ridge of high ground) between the Santiago and Zamora rivers. It turned out, however, that between these two rivers there was not a single watershed, but a third river, the Cenepa. As a result, out of a 1500 kilometer-long block of land marked frontier, approximately 78 kilometers remained an “open wound.”
Armed conflict erupted in 1981 and again in 1995, but did not settle the issue. On the contrary, more bitterness and mutual mistrust developed. This zone was epitomized by the outpost of Tiwintza, a small area of land where soldiers from both countries had been killed and buried. Tiwintza became a heroic symbol to each country.
The post-1995 negotiation process had advanced important agreements regarding future joint projects, mutual security, trust, commerce, and navigational rights over some tributaries of the Amazon. Nonetheless, all this progress was contingent on a final agreement over Tiwintza.
As an almost final effort to overcome entrenched positions, Ecuador and Peru asked a special commission for a nonmandatory but morally important opinion (a Parecer) on the issue. The special commission was known as a Juridical–Technical International Commission and included representatives of Argentina, Brazil, and the United States. The opinion of the commission was released a few weeks before I was elected president. It expressed the view that Tiwintza was part of the sovereign territory of Peru. That opinion, contrary to the situation on the ground where Ecuadorian troops had been for decades, stirred up escalating hostility between the two countries.
By the time I took office, the troops from Ecuador and Peru had occupied the previously agreed upon demilitarized zone. They faced one another so closely that, in some places, they could shake hands and say Buenos días before raising their rifles. The Ecuadorian military command briefed me that a Peruvian invasion starting a few hours after my inauguration was a likely scenario. Peru would most likely provoke not a localized but a generalized armed conflict. The magnitude of this risk was perceived only by the most informed echelon of society. The rest of the country was immersed in their struggle to survive the economic difficulties and was distracted temporarily by the new president’s inauguration.

THE CHALLENGE: AGAINST ALL ODDS

Upon stepping into office, pursuing peace with Peru would require: 

- Belief. 

There would have to be the popular belief that the war could be resolved. Myths are almost impossible to debunk; the intractability of the problem with Peru had deep roots in Ecuadorians’ flesh and souls.

- Civic participation. 

Making peace between Ecuador and Peru would have to be a “people’s project,” not a government issue. There would need to be a boost in participation of the people represented by any legitimate organization or group.

- Trust. 

Cooperation and mutual trust would need to be elicited from all sectors in this fragmented country.

- Political support. 

A formula for peace would need to be created. It would have to be acceptable for both countries and for many different sectors in each country.

- Economic stability. 

There would need to be ways to bring economic stability to a country on the verge of war. In such a moment of distress, how could the government go about dictating badly needed, but unpopular, economic adjustments that would compromise the national unity and governability of Ecuador? 

- A clear, coherent, comprehensive action plan. 

The resulting plan would need to be not only military but also economic, political, and international in scope.

PREPARING FOR PEACE 

Since the purpose of this chapter is showing the core concerns in action, I’ll focus my attention on the negotiation strategy of the border conflict and some interactions with my colleague, President Alberto Fujimori of Peru, while ignoring the complications of the economic situation in Ecuador.
I needed a talented governmental cabinet to carry out peace efforts. Dr Jose Ayala, allegedly the most respected Ecuadorian diplomat, had been minister of foreign affairs and had conducted peace negotiations. I asked him to remain in his role. General Jose Gallardo had been minister of defense during the most recent armed conflict in 1995; that conflict had ended with an Ecuadorian military victory. I appointed General Gallardo to be minister of defense. In short, I appointed the chancellor of peace and the general of war as members of my cabinet. This was done to send a clear signal: Although Ecuador was openly inclined to a peaceful solution, we were ready to defend ourselves fiercely if necessary.
Chancellor Ayala informed me of the general perception that nearly every contentious issue had been agreed upon by the two diplomatic delegations. The remaining point, the territorial dispute of the zone symbolized by Tiwintza, was something that only the presidents themselves could decide. It required a final stage of diplomacy at the highest level —“Presidential Diplomacy” as the press labeled it.
I phoned Professor Roger Fisher at his Harvard Law School office and invited him to come to Quito and join the Ecuadorian government team to analyze the current situation, brainstorm possible approaches, and prepare a negotiation strategy.
When Roger arrived in Quito, we worked on various fronts simultaneously. We carefully reviewed with the ministers of defense and foreign affairs the up-to-date military and diplomatic facts. To get everybody on the same page, Roger offered, for the benefit of some cabinet and staff members connected with the negotiation, a half-day presentation of his classic Seven Elements of Negotiation and some useful techniques for their application.
Due to the current tensions, a personal meeting of the two presidents was most unlikely to occur. However, in preparation for an eventual encounter with President Fujimori, Roger and I examined ways to start a personal working relationship.
The first two or three days in any new job can be hectic. A presidential office is no exception. Our meetings were frequently interrupted by urgent events. We had some of our sessions at odd times and places. I remember slipping Roger into my office between two scheduled appointments and meeting him in the dining room of my residence in the palace after eleven at night.

KEY ELEMENTS IN BUILDING EMOTIONAL RAPPORT 

In a negotiation process, the relationship among the negotiators is as important as the substance of the negotiation. My first strategic decision was to build upon the existing working relationship already established between the two national negotiation teams. My nondelegable, crucially important mission was to build personal rapport with President Fujimori, a man I had not met. It was a challenge to figure out how I would do that.
In my third day in office, I received an unexpected call from President Cardoso of Brazil. He invited me to a personal meeting with President Fujimori in Asuncion del Paraguay, where all three of us were scheduled to be thirty-six hours later for the inauguration of President Cubas.
Two facts were clear to me. I badly needed that first encounter. And I was not yet ready to tackle the substance of the problem. How could I communicate the seriousness of my intentions to President Fujimori without giving him the impression that I was just buying time and procrastinating? 

Appreciation: Show Your Understanding of His Merits and Difficulties 

Our team agreed to make it clear to President Fujimori that I appreciated his years of involvement in the boundary problem and the knowledge he must have derived from that experience. That assessment of President Fujimori’s situation would have been plainly true for any dispassionate observer. I expected that such initial recognition would help us find an emotional common ground to serve as a basis for future conversations. My preparation with Roger started like this: 

ROGER: What is the purpose of your first meeting with President Fujimori? 

JAMIL: I see two purposes. I want to get to know him and his vision about the current situation. And I want to get his commitment that we are going to exhaust dialogue before stepping into war. For these purposes, I would like to listen first and ask him questions.

ROGER: Great purposes. But if you go after him with a lot of questions, he may feel as if the FBI is interrogating him. He’s likely to clam up. An easier and perhaps wiser approach would be to have President Fujimori come to feel that he knows you. Be open. Start by laying some of your cards on the table. 

That was precisely what I did. Using stories, historical examples, and anecdotes, I explained to President Fujimori how I understood the difficult situation he was facing. I asked for his reciprocal understanding of the extremely complex scenario I was acting on. He responded well, although cautiously. In a soft, tranquil voice, he stated, “My three goals when I started my presidency were to eliminate hyperinflation, to dismember the Shining Path guerrillas, and to finish the border issue with Ecuador. I have accomplished the first two already. The third one must be concluded as well.”
That gave me the opportunity to express frankly my admiration for his work on both of the first two issues, which was universally applauded, while adopting a wait-and-see attitude about the third.

Affiliation: Find Some Common Ground 

A major task was to change the widespread perception of the bad relationship between the two countries. This task was faced by President Fujimori and myself, as well as by our staff and officials, the media, and the public at large. For years, each country had regarded the other as an enemy.
President Fujimori and I agreed that a goal should be to have the public in each country come to see that we were working together, side by side, toward the settlement of the centuries-old boundary conflict.
Since “one picture is worth a thousand words,” Roger suggested that I arrange for a photograph to be taken of the two presidents. I said that would not be a problem. The media would be present before and after our meeting.
Rather than a picture of us shaking hands or standing next to each other, however, Roger wanted us to be sitting, side by side, each with a pen or pencil in his hand, both looking at a map or a pad on which there might be some kind of draft proposal. We would not be looking at the camera or at each other but rather working. Such a photograph might help convince third parties, the media, and the public that things had started to change for the better. The photograph would make clear that the presidents were in a collaborative effort, tackling the boundary problem together.
When I returned from Paraguay, I showed Roger a newspaper with a front-page photograph of the two presidents working together (image shown below). 
I told Roger that I knew the photograph was intended to influence the public. What surprised me was the extent to which the photograph also influenced President Fujimori and me. Looking at the photograph, President Fujimori said that the public in each country would now be expecting us to settle the boundary. We had publicly undertaken that task, and we owed it to the people in each country to succeed.

Status: “I’ll Recognize His Seniority” 

President Fujimori and I met for the first time in Asuncion. We were in the presidential suite kindly offered by the Argentinean President Carlos Menem as a neutral territory. At that time, President Fujimori had been president of Peru for eight years and I had been president of Ecuador for four days.
“You can make a first impression only once,” I reminded myself.
“Stating the evident will not harm my position. Contrarily, it will convey the image of an open, objective person,” I thought. “I’ll recognize his seniority, a personal matter where there’s no debate, and I will not accept his substantive proposals about delicate matters where there’s a hot debate.”
I said, “President Fujimori, you’ve been president for eight years. I’ve been a president for four days. You have negotiated with four of my predecessors. I would like us to benefit from your extensive experience.” I asked him, “Do you have ideas on how we might deal with this border dispute in a way that would meet the interests of both Peru and Ecuador?”



This photograph on the front page of an Ecuador newspaper helped change the political climate in 1998 by showing presidents Mahuad of Ecuador and Fujimori of Peru working together side by side. 

I recognized his seniority with courteous gestures, which were reciprocated by him. For example, I always made sure he entered rooms first as the senior president. In this way, I acknowledged and respected his seniority, a particular status of President Fujimori. I also acknowledged my own particular status as president and as a connoisseur of the Ecuadorian reality.
To recognize areas where President Fujimori held high status did not imply that I was agreeing with him or with his position. Contrarily, when combined with showing appreciation, honoring his status gave me room to manifest my openly discrepant standings without endangering the relationship.

Autonomy: Do Not Tell Others 

What to Do Autonomy is a core concern for human beings, particularly sensitive for figures like politicians who are in positions of authority. For many years, Ecuador and Peru refused to negotiate with one another, each fearing that they would be seen as “giving in” to the other’s demands. No politician likes to be seen as a puppet of anybody else, especially when each one is on a different side of a centuries-old conflict.
It would be dangerous for a president to do something that would make our constituents suspicious or otherwise put us in a difficult position in our own country.
In all our meetings, I was very conscientious to respect his autonomy and to ensure my own. It would have been deadly wrong, for example, to try to tell President Fujimori what to do. Rather I asked for his perceptions and reactions on how we two presidents might best settle this protracted and costly boundary dispute.
My personal respect for him did not imply that I was agreeing with him or with his demand. “I simply cannot ask Congress and the people to give in to the demands of Peru. I’m not going to do it. Were I to do it, Congress would never agree; nor would any Ecuadorian. That’s a dead-end road.
What are your alternative ideas on how we might move forward toward a peaceful agreement?”
I asked President Fujimori to appreciate the fact that the Ecuadorian president, Congress, and people would never concede to this Peruvian claim. Our autonomy would be crushed.

Role: “Us” Means “Us” for Both Sides 

Negotiators play multiple, simultaneous, sometimes contradictory, overlapping, or complementary roles. In an effort to settle this longstanding boundary dispute, each president would have a crucial job. Each would have the task of bringing his own constituents to accept a settlement of the boundary. I saw my role as leading two simultaneous negotiations. One role, obviously, was as negotiator with President Fujimori. The other role, not so obvious but equally important, was my role as a negotiator with the people of Ecuador, its institutions, and representative organizations.
I recognized that President Fujimori had the same two roles and faced the same tasks. Therefore, I proposed to him we not do anything to harm each other’s legitimacy as authorized representatives of our peoples. For instance, it would have been self-defeating to claim that a treaty was good for Ecuador because it was bad for Peru—or vice versa.
On the contrary, I saw that the role of each president was to demonstrate that an agreement was good for both countries, good for the region, good for trade, good for economic development, and good for the alleviation of poverty. We needed a win-win proposition. In crafting that proposition, our roles were both stressful and full of personal meaning.
Too often in international affairs, the goal is seen as obtaining a commitment from the other side. The media keep asking: “Who backed down?” “Who gave in?” “Did you reach an agreement?” “No? So the negotiations failed?” They want to see us playing the role of the victorious hero defeating a deceitful enemy. But “us” means “us” for both sides. In a negotiation, the most useful and powerful outcome may be an emotional commitment to continue working together in order to implement a peace agreement after signing it. Working together did not suggest that either of us gave up our liberty, our discretion, or our autonomy.
Rather, we transformed a problem into an opportunity. That required a new conception of the roles we played: a shift from opponents to colleagues, from positional bargainers in a merely distributional zero-sum game to joint problem solvers inventing new options to increase the size of the pie and the scope of possible outcomes.

Core Concerns as a Bundle 

At some moments, the situation called for intertwining different core concerns and reinforcing them at different levels. One particularly challenging circumstance stands out. The nonbinding opinion (Parecer) of the international experts gave a big push to Peru’s claim to Tiwintza. It would have been impossible, however, for any Ecuadorian president to yield to the claim without losing legitimacy, demeaning his presidential status, betraying his role, and risking his people’s appreciation and affiliation. I wanted to recognize the strength and merits of the Peruvian case, and at the same time to get appreciation for the Ecuadorian situation, my autonomy, and my role.
My sensitivity to these core concerns helped me navigate this difficult terrain. “President Fujimori,” I said, “Peru has a strong claim to the disputed area. Because of the commission’s Parecer, it may, in fact, be stronger than Ecuador’s claim (appreciating Peru’s point). If I were president of Peru, I’d have no other option than to seek to get every square meter of that land (appreciating merit in Peru’s perspective).
Yet, as president of Ecuador, I cannot agree to give Peru territory that every president and every Congress since Ecuador was born has insisted is part of Ecuador. (I was asking him to reciprocate by appreciating my situation and understanding my difficulties.) We are convinced that we have the moral and legal rights over the area in dispute, and we’re not going to change that conviction because of a nonbinding technical opinion (Parecer). One hundred more opinions like that one wouldn’t be sufficient to change our centuries-old feelings of ownership over those territories. (As a country, we have our autonomy.) Hence, any president of Ecuador should say and do what I’m saying and doing. (Asking for his reciprocal affiliation.) Now, in our role as presidents, we can undertake our new mission, which is to find a formula acceptable for the peoples in both countries.” (I was searching for an additional common ground of affiliation in fairness and justice.) This dialogue had the noticeable effect of committing us both to a joint problem-solving approach. Our predominantly rational, carefully prepared, goal-oriented initial steps were additionally fueled by the rapport built rapidly between us and among our delegations. Peace became a flashing beacon, a powerful magnetic force taking up most of our time and energy during my first seventy-seven days in office.

THE AGREEMENT 

We kept the people of Ecuador permanently informed about the advance of our negotiation. As progress was evident, a virtuous circle replaced the old vicious one. Negotiation became popular and openly a part of our national objectives. Participation increased. Everybody wanted to be part of the process and to express their voices. Common goals enhanced trust. Political actors started giving support because they understood gains were larger than risks if they represented the now popular will for peace. Belief in a negotiated solution replaced the usual pessimism. Overwhelming support at all levels of society boosted the government’s initial action plan. Although this peace process did not stabilize the economy, the menace of war no longer worsened the economic situation.
On October 26, 1998, in Brasilia, ten weeks after our first meeting,
President Fujimori and I signed a final, comprehensive peace treaty that was ratified by the Congress of each country. The two countries agreed that the entire disputed boundary area would become an international conservation park in which there would be no economic or military activities except as the two governments might later agree.
Tiwintza itself required special treatment. We two presidents agreed that if the representatives of the four countries that were helping us could concur on a recommendation for Tiwintza, we would commit ourselves to accept it.
Congresses of both countries voted to give the representatives authority to arbitrate.
A creative agreement for Tiwintza was formulated. The representatives separated sovereignty rights from property rights over Tiwintza. Thus, the land is now within the sovereign territory of Peru. And one square kilometer of land around Tiwintza, just inside Peru and adjoining Ecuador, is now private property owned in perpetuity by the government of Ecuador (just as Ecuador might own some land in Lima, Peru). Neither country “gave up”
Tiwintza. The government of Peru can say, “Tiwintza is part of our sovereign territory.” The government of Ecuador can say, “We own Tiwintza forever.”

A FINAL REFLECTION 

I agree with Roger and Dan that negotiators often assume that the best way to negotiate is purely rational. To be sure, strong hostile emotions easily escalate and cause problems. Yet, more importantly, in my experience, emotions can be helpful. When going into negotiations, I was ready to take the initiative and act upon each of the core concerns—on appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role. In doing so, President Fujimori and I established good rapport, a strong working relationship, and a stable agreement.
The Ecuador-Peru negotiations of 1998 were in themselves a complete success. The boundary was settled and has remained so. Not a single border military incident has been reported since that time. Binational trade and cooperation have reached historical records, and peace has been praised, valued, and owned by governments and citizens alike on both sides of the border.
My major reason for wanting to establish peace between Ecuador and Peru was to give both countries the benefits that only peace could bring.
Additionally, establishing peace with Peru would enable Ecuador to reduce its military budget. Those resources could then be devoted to programs to alleviate poverty. And that is what my administration did after the treaty was signed in 1998.
In January 2000, a military-backed coup forced me out of office for reasons too complicated to go into in this document. This fate is one I share with many Latin American presidents.
That is part of the official side of the story. On the personal side,
Alberto Fujimori and I gradually developed a personal friendship beyond the call of our duties.
In March 2004, over a cup of coffee in Tokyo’s Royal Park Hotel, we reflected on the lessons we learned. Alberto said, “Peace is consolidated.
Everybody respects it.” In the beginning, few of us believed that peace was possible. Now it was owned by everybody.
Alberto and I remembered a conversation we had in Brazil during the peace process. After a press conference, I had told him: “Things are changing. The situation used to be pretty clear: Ecuadorian journalists on one side, Peruvian journalists on the other. Now they’re mixed together. That’s a good omen for the future.”
Alberto had said, “Yesterday, while reading an article in a Lima newspaper, I felt as if you and I were on the pro-peace side, facing together some opposition to peace in both countries.” I nodded in agreement.
Since the beginning, we had worked together to satisfy our core concerns for affiliation, appreciation, and autonomy. Our status was respected. And our roles were fulfilling. We had created an atmosphere to advance substantive content. As almost always happens, process and substance walked hand in hand. 

Domestic Systematically Important Banks of India as of Jan, 2021

What is a D-SIB?

1. Some banks, due to their size, cross-jurisdictional activities, complexity, lack of substitutability and interconnectedness, become systemically important. The disorderly failure of these banks has the potential to cause significant disruption to the essential services they provide to the banking system, and in turn, to the overall economic activity. Therefore, the continued functioning of Systemically Important Banks (SIBs) is critical for the uninterrupted availability of essential banking services to the real economy.

Lessons from recent global financial crisis:

2. It was observed during the recent global financial crisis that problems faced by certain large and highly interconnected financial institutions hampered the orderly functioning of the financial system, which in turn, negatively impacted the real economy. Government intervention was considered necessary to ensure financial stability in many jurisdictions. Cost of public sector intervention and consequential increase in moral hazard required that future regulatory policies should aim at reducing the probability of failure of SIBs and the impact of the failure of these banks.

3. As a response to the recent crisis, a series of reform measures were unveiled, broadly known as Basel III, to improve the resiliency of banks and banking systems. Basel III reform measures include: increase in the quality and quantity of regulatory capital of the banks, improving risk coverage, introduction of a leverage ratio to serve as a backstop to the risk-based capital regime, capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer as well as a global standard for liquidity risk management. These policy measures will cover all banks including SIBs. However, these policy measures are not adequate to deal with risks posed by SIBs. Therefore, additional policy measures for SIBs are necessary to counter the systemic risks and moral hazard issues posed by these banks, which other policy reforms do not address adequately.

Additional risks posed by SIBs:

4. SIBs are perceived as banks that are ‘Too Big To Fail (TBTF)’. This perception of TBTF creates an expectation of government support for these banks at the time of distress. Due to this perception, these banks enjoy certain advantages in the funding markets. However, the perceived expectation of government support amplifies risk-taking, reduces market discipline, creates competitive distortions, and increases the probability of distress in the future. These considerations require that SIBs should be subjected to additional policy measures to deal with the systemic risks and moral hazard issues posed by them.

5. In October 20101, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) recommended that all member countries needed to have in place a framework to reduce risks attributable to Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) in their jurisdictions. The FSB asked the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) to develop an assessment methodology comprising both quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess the systemic importance of Global SIFIs (G-SIFIs), along with an assessment of the extent of going-concern loss absorbency capital which could be provided by various proposed instruments. In response, BCBS came out with a framework in November, 2011 (since up-dated in July, 2013) for identifying the Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) and the magnitude of additional loss absorbency capital requirements applicable to these G-SIBs.

6. The BCBS is also considering proposals such as large exposure restrictions and liquidity measures which are referred to as “other prudential measures” in the FSB Recommendations and Time Lines. The G20 leaders had asked the BCBS and FSB in November 2011 to extend the G-SIBs framework to Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) expeditiously.

7. The methodology to be used to assess the systemic importance is largely based on the indicator based approach being used by BCBS to identify G-SIBs. The indicators to be used to assess domestic systemic importance of the banks are as follows:

i) Size;
ii) Interconnectedness;
iii) Lack of readily available substitutes or financial institution infrastructure; and
iv) Complexity.

What is CET1 (Common Equity Tier 1)?
% CET1 is a measure of bank solvency that gauges a bank’s capital strength.
% This measure is better captured by the CET1 ratio, which measures a bank’s capital against its assets. 
% Common equity Tier 1 ratio = common equity tier 1 capital / risk-weighted assets

According to Press Release of March 14, 2019 
RBI releases 2018 list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs). SBI, ICICI Bank, and HDFC Bank continue to be identified as Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs), under the same bucketing structure as last year. The additional Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) requirement for D-SIBs has already been phased-in from April 1, 2016 and will become fully effective from April 1, 2019. The additional CET1 requirement will be in addition to the capital conservation buffer.



Background:
The Reserve Bank had issued the Framework for dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) on July 22, 2014. The D-SIB framework requires the Reserve Bank to disclose the names of banks designated as D-SIBs starting from 2015 and place these banks in appropriate buckets depending upon their Systemic Importance Scores (SISs). Based on the bucket in which a D-SIB is placed, an additional common equity requirement has to be applied to it. In case a foreign bank having branch presence in India is a Global Systemically Important Bank (G-SIB), it has to maintain additional CET1 capital surcharge in India as applicable to it as a G-SIB, proportionate to its Risk Weighted Assets (RWAs) in India i.e. additional CET1 buffer prescribed by the home regulator (amount) multiplied by India RWA as per consolidated global Group books divided by Total consolidated global Group RWA.

The higher capital requirements are applicable from April 1, 2016 in a phased manner and will become fully effective from April 1, 2019. The additional common equity requirement for different buckets over the four year phase-in period is as under:



Based on the methodology provided in the D-SIB framework and data collected from banks as on March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2016, the Reserve Bank had announced State Bank of India and ICICI Bank Ltd. as D-SIBs on August 31, 2015 and August 25, 2016, respectively. Based on data collected from banks as on March 31, 2017, the Reserve Bank had announced State Bank of India, ICICI Bank Ltd. and HDFC Bank Ltd. as D-SIBs on September 04, 2017. Current update is based on the data collected from banks as on March 31, 2018. 

Further the D-SIB framework requires that “The assessment methodology for assessing the systemic importance of banks and identifying D-SIBs will be reviewed on a regular basis. However, this review will be at least once in three years.” Current review and analysis of cross country practices do not warrant any change in the extant framework at present. 

References

% Framework for Dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs)

% 2017 list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) (From: fsb.org)
 
% RBI releases Framework for dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Jul 22, 2014
 
% RBI releases list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Aug 31, 2015
 
% RBI identifies SBI and ICICI Bank as D-SIBs in 2016 / Date : Aug 25, 2016
 
% RBI releases 2017 list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Sep 04, 2017
 
% RBI releases 2018 list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Mar 14, 2019

% Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1)

Medicine Listing (Dec 2020)

1. AF 400 Tablet

Prescription Required

MANUFACTURER: Systopic Laboratories Pvt Ltd

SALT COMPOSITION: Fluconazole (400mg)

INTRODUCTION

AF 400 Tablet belongs to a group of medicines called antifungals. It works by stopping the growth of fungus and is used to treat infections of the mouth, throat, vagina, and other parts of the body including fingernails and toenails. It kills fungi by destroying the fungal cell membrane.

SIDE EFFECTS OF AF TABLET

Most side effects do not require any medical attention and disappear as your body adjusts to the medicine. Consult your doctor if they persist or if you’re worried about them
Common side effects of AF
- Headache
- Nausea
- Stomach pain

Ref: 1mg

Salt Information:

Fluconazole is an antifungal medication used for a number of fungal infections. This includes candidiasis, blastomycosis, coccidiodomycosis, cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, dermatophytosis, and pityriasis versicolor. It is also used to prevent candidiasis in those who are at high risk such as following organ transplantation, low birth weight babies, and those with low blood neutrophil counts. It is given either by mouth or by injection into a vein.

Common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, rash, and increased liver enzymes. Serious side effects may include liver problems, QT prolongation, and seizures. During pregnancy it may increase the risk of miscarriage while large doses may cause birth defects. Fluconazole is in the azole antifungal family of medication. It is believed to work by affecting the fungal cellular membrane.

Fluconazole was patented in 1981 and came into commercial use in 1988. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. Fluconazole is available as a generic medication. In 2017, it was the 182nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than three million prescriptions.

Ref: Wikipedia

2. Sertaconazole (in the form of Sertaconazole Nitrate cream) 

Sertaconazole, sold under the brand name Ertaczo among others, is an antifungal medication of the imidazole class. It is available as a cream to treat skin infections such as athlete's foot.

It is also available in a vaginal tablet form. The most popular of these is Gyno-Dermofix.[citation needed]

Sertaconazole has several known mechanisms of action. It is considered fungistatic, fungicidal, antibacterial, antiinflammatory, antitrichomonal, and antipruritic.

Side effects:

Side effects were rarely reported with sertaconazole therapy, but may include contact dermatitis, burning on application site and skin dryness.

Ref:
% Wikipedia - Sertaconazole

% Wikipedia - Antifungal

3. Beclomethasone Dipropionate (in the form of topical cream) 

Following information is about the 'Beclometasone' chemical compound.

Beclometasone, also known as beclometasone dipropionate, and sold under the brand name Qvar among others, is a steroid medication. It is available as an inhaler, cream, pills, and nasal spray. The inhaled form is used in the long-term management of asthma. The cream may be used for dermatitis and psoriasis. The pills have been used to treat ulcerative colitis. The nasal spray is used to treat allergic rhinitis and nasal polyps.

Common side effects with the inhaled form include respiratory infections, headaches, and throat inflammation. Serious side effects include an increased risk of infection, cataracts, Cushing's syndrome, and severe allergic reactions. Long-term use of the pill form may cause adrenal insufficiency. The pills may also cause mood or personality changes. The inhaled form is generally regarded as safe in pregnancy. Beclometasone is mainly a glucocorticoid.

Beclometasone dipropionate was first patented in 1962 and used medically in 1972. It was approved for medical use in the United States in 1976. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. In 2017, it was the 153rd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than four million prescriptions.

Side effects

Common side effects with the inhaled form include respiratory infections, headaches, and throat inflammation. Serious side effects include an increased risk of infection, cataracts, Cushing's syndrome, and severe allergic reactions. Long-term use of the pill form may cause adrenal insufficiency. The pills may also cause mood or personality changes. The inhaled form is generally regarded as safe in pregnancy.

Occasionally, it may cause a cough upon inhalation. Deposition on the tongue and throat may promote oral candidiasis, which appears as a white coating, possibly with irritation. This may usually be prevented by rinsing the mouth with water after using the inhaler. Other adverse drug reaction side effects may rarely include: a smell similar to burning plastic, unpleasant taste, hoarseness or nasal congestion, pain or headache, and visual changes. Allergic reactions may occur, but rarely.

Nasal corticosteroids may be associated with central serous retinopathy.

Pharmacology
Beclometasone is mainly a glucocorticoid. Glucocorticoids are corticosteroids that bind to the glucocorticoid receptor that is present in almost every vertebrate animal cell. The activated glucocorticoid receptor-glucocorticoid complex up-regulates the expression of anti-inflammatory proteins in the nucleus (a process known as transactivation) and represses the expression of proinflammatory proteins in the cytosol by preventing the translocation of other transcription factors from the cytosol into the nucleus (transrepression).

Glucocorticoids are part of the feedback mechanism in the immune system which reduces certain aspects of immune function, such as inflammation.

Names 
Beclometasone dipropionate is the INN (International nonproprietary name) modified and beclomethasone dipropionate is the USAN and former BAN. It is a prodrug of the free form, beclometasone (INN). The prodrug beclometasone is marketed in Norway and Russia.

Clenil, Qvar are brandnames for the inhalers. Beconase, Alanase, Vancenase, Qnasl for the nasal spray or aerosol.

Ref: Wikipedia

4. Bilastine (in the tablet form) 

Bilastine (sold under the brand names BILLASI and Blexten, among others), is a second-generation antihistamine medication which is used in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria (hives).

It exerts its effect as a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist, and has an effectiveness similar to cetirizine, fexofenadine, and desloratadine. It was developed in Spain by FAES Farma.

Bilastine is approved in the European Union for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria, but it is not approved for any use in the United States. Bilastine meets the current European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact of Asthma (ARIA) criteria for medication used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Bilastine has been effective in the treatment of diseases of allergies, including rhinoconjuctivitis. Additionally, bilastine has been shown to improve quality of life, and all nasal and eye symptoms related to allergic rhinitis.

Side effects 

Toxicity of bilastine investigated in preclinical toxicology studies in mice, rats and dogs after oral and intravenous administration showed no mortality observed after oral administration of massive doses. After intravenous administration, LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of animals) values were 33 and 45–75 mg/kg in mice and rats, respectively. No signs of toxicity were observed in any organ after bilastine massive overdosing, either orally (in mice, rats and dogs), or intravenously (in rats and dogs) during 4 weeks. No effects on fertility, no teratogenic or mutagenic effects, and no apparent carcinogenic potential were seen in the studies carried out in rats, mice and rabbits.

In clinical research, bilastine has proven to be well tolerated, with an adverse events profile similar to that of placebo in healthy volunteers, patients with AR and with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Although the tolerance profile of bilastine and levocetirizine or desloratadine were very similar, bilastine was markedly better tolerated than cetirizine in a clinical assay in SAR, with fewer adverse events in the bilastine group. No anticholinergic adverse events were observed in the clinical trials with bilastine. No serious adverse events were reported during the research and there were no clinically significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiography (ECG) or laboratory tests. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and studies in special populations indicate that dose adjustment of bilastine is not necessary in elderly patients or in chronic liver disease or chronic kidney disease.

Ref: Wikipedia

5. Luliconazole Cream 

Luliconazole, trade names Luzu among others, is an imidazole antifungal medication. As a 1% topical cream, It is indicated for the treatment of athlete's foot, jock itch, and ringworm caused by dermatophytes such as Trichophyton rubrum, Microsporum gypseum and Epidermophyton floccosum.

Ref: Wikipedia

6. Adgain Plus Capsule 

- Facilitates protection of damaged hair

- Helps to counter premature greying of hair

- Helps to reduce the biotin deficiency

Adgain Plus Capsule helps in treating the hair loss due to changes in the hair structure because of stress.  The hair becomes thin, inelastic, brittle, lifeless, dull and colourless hair. Adgain plus capsules are a dietary supplement for hair. 

Key Ingredients:

- Biotin

- Calcium D-Pantothenate

- Iron

- Zinc

- Green Tea Powder

- L-Cysteine

- Thiamine

- Vitamin D3

- Yeast Extract

Key Benefits:

- It helps to protect the hair damaged by sunlight

- Reduces and protects the greying of the hair

- Improves the hair structure, strengthens the hair and increases the resistance of the hair from mechanical, chemical and sun damage

- Fortify the hair with the power of L- cystine, brewer's yeast and calcium pantothenate

- Works by treating or preventing the hair from biotin deficiency

- Adgain plus capsule is used for hair fall, retarded hair growth, damaged hair, and other conditions

Directions For Use: One tablet per day or as directed by the physician.

Ref: 1mg

Few tips for good hair health:

- Do not wash hair or scalp with hot water.

- Do not comb wet hair.

- Do not wear tight caps, hats, headwear, helmets, etc.

- Eat a lot of veg protein such as grams / chickpeas, sprouts, pulses. (Other rich protein sources could be cheese, nuts, soyabean, tofu, etc)

- Do not stress over little things. Avoid it as much as you can.

7. Keraglo Men Tablet 

Highlights:

- Helps to prevent hair fall and treat scalp problems

- Helps to improve the quality of hair and make them healthy

- Promotes healthy growth of hair and strengthen the hair

Keraglo Men Tablet contains gamma-linolenic acid, which is found mostly in plant-based oils such as barrage seed oil), multivitamins and multi-minerals. Gamma-Linolenic Acid is known to be an essential fatty acid that helps to stop hair loss as well as the growth of hair. 

Key Ingredients:
- Gamma-Linolenic acid
- Multivitamins
- Multi minerals

Key Benefits:
- It helps to normalize the hair growth cycle
- Enhances the quality of hair
- Helps to reduce hair fall

Directions For Use:
Keraglo Men Tablets are generally used by men who are suffering from hair loss. You can take 1 tablet daily with a glass of water, before or after a meal.

Safety Information:
- Read the instructions carefully before use
- Avoid contact with eyes, eyelid areas, nostril areas & close to the mouth
- Keep out of reach of the children
- Use under medical supervision

Ref: 1mg

8. D3 Sure Nano Shot Oral Solution 5ml 

MANUFACTURER: Aareen Healthcare Pvt Ltd
SALT COMPOSITION: Vitamin D3 (60000IU)

USES OF D3 SURE ORAL SOLUTION
- Vitamin D deficiency
- Osteoporosis

BENEFITS OF D3 SURE ORAL SOLUTION

- In Vitamin D deficiency
Normally your body creates vitamin D from sunlight, but you will be prescribed this medicine as a supplement if you do not have enough. It is important to keep taking it regularly to get the benefits. You may not notice it working but keep taking it in order to protect your bones. Additionally, it can boost your immunity and increase the body's resistance against various infections.

SIDE EFFECTS OF D3 SURE ORAL SOLUTION
Most side effects do not require any medical attention and disappear as your body adjusts to the medicine. Consult your doctor if they persist or if you’re worried about them
Common side effects of 'D3 Sure': No common side effects seen

HOW D3 SURE ORAL SOLUTION WORKS
D3 Sure Nano Shot Oral Solution 5ml is a form of vitamin D. It raises vitamin D levels in your blood. This in turn raises calcium levels in your blood by helping you absorb more calcium from food.

Ref: 1mg

Does your city look like this?

These images were taken in the Tri Nagar area of North-West Delhi on 18th December 2020. Check out how polluted the capital city of India is.

Junk Cars and Vehicles 














Cows that are littering the streets and blocking the traffic 














Litter







Tri Nagar Drain That Has Been Planned To Be Covered But Government Has Not Shared Any Plans As To When It Will Be Done.










Organizations, Associations and Political Campaigning














Do We Need To Ask These Shops To Take Some Reponsibility For City's Cleanliness?










Temples That Ask You To Worship Animals But Don't Take Any Reponsibility Of City's Cleanliness

Stop Words Removal (NLTK, SpaCy, Gensim)

Stop words are those words in natural language that have a very little meaning, such as "is", "an", "the", etc. Search engines and other enterprise indexing platforms often filter the stop words while fetching results from the database against the user queries.

Stop words are often removed from the text before training deep learning and machine learning models since stop words occur in abundance, hence providing little to no unique information that can be used for classification or clustering. 

It still requires consideration when removing stop words such as 'no', 'not', 'nor', "wouldn't", "shouldn't" as they negate the meaning of the sentence and are useful in problems such as 'Sentiment Analysis'.

Several natural language processing libraries such as NLTK, SpaCy, Gensim, TextBlob, etc provide functionality to remove stop-words.

Using NLTK

from nltk.corpus import stopwords
nltk.download('stopwords')
from nltk.tokenize import word_tokenize

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
text_tokens = word_tokenize(text)

tokens_without_sw = [word for word in text_tokens if not word in stopwords.words()]

print(tokens_without_sw) 

Here is how the sentence looks without the stop words:

['Nick', 'likes', 'play', 'football', ',', 'however', 'fond', 'tennis', '.']

To print again as a sentence:

filtered_sentence = (" ").join(tokens_without_sw)
print(filtered_sentence) 

Here is the output:

Nick likes play football , however fond tennis .

Let's see the list of all the English stop words supported by NLTK:

print(stopwords.words('english'))

Output:

['i', 'me', 'my', 'myself', 'we', 'our', 'ours', 'ourselves', 'you', "you're", "you've", "you'll", "you'd", 'your', 'yours', 'yourself', 'yourselves', 'he', 'him', 'his', 'himself', 'she', "she's", 'her', 'hers', 'herself', 'it', "it's", 'its', 'itself', 'they', 'them', 'their', 'theirs', 'themselves', 'what', 'which', 'who', 'whom', 'this', 'that', "that'll", 'these', 'those', 'am', 'is', 'are', 'was', 'were', 'be', 'been', 'being', 'have', 'has', 'had', 'having', 'do', 'does', 'did', 'doing', 'a', 'an', 'the', 'and', 'but', 'if', 'or', 'because', 'as', 'until', 'while', 'of', 'at', 'by', 'for', 'with', 'about', 'against', 'between', 'into', 'through', 'during', 'before', 'after', 'above', 'below', 'to', 'from', 'up', 'down', 'in', 'out', 'on', 'off', 'over', 'under', 'again', 'further', 'then', 'once', 'here', 'there', 'when', 'where', 'why', 'how', 'all', 'any', 'both', 'each', 'few', 'more', 'most', 'other', 'some', 'such', 'no', 'nor', 'not', 'only', 'own', 'same', 'so', 'than', 'too', 'very', 's', 't', 'can', 'will', 'just', 'don', "don't", 'should', "should've", 'now', 'd', 'll', 'm', 'o', 're', 've', 'y', 'ain', 'aren', "aren't", 'couldn', "couldn't", 'didn', "didn't", 'doesn', "doesn't", 'hadn', "hadn't", 'hasn', "hasn't", 'haven', "haven't", 'isn', "isn't", 'ma', 'mightn', "mightn't", 'mustn', "mustn't", 'needn', "needn't", 'shan', "shan't", 'shouldn', "shouldn't", 'wasn', "wasn't", 'weren', "weren't", 'won', "won't", 'wouldn', "wouldn't"] 

Using Python's Gensim Library 

from gensim.parsing.preprocessing import remove_stopwords

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
filtered_sentence = remove_stopwords(text)

print(filtered_sentence)

Output:

Nick likes play football, fond tennis.

Adding and Removing Stop Words in Default Gensim Stop Words List
Let's first take a look at the stop words in Python's Gensim library:

import gensim
all_stopwords = gensim.parsing.preprocessing.STOPWORDS
print(all_stopwords)

The following script adds likes and play to the list of stop words in Gensim:

from gensim.parsing.preprocessing import STOPWORDS

all_stopwords_gensim = STOPWORDS.union(set(['likes', 'play']))

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
text_tokens = word_tokenize(text)
tokens_without_sw = [word for word in text_tokens if not word in all_stopwords_gensim]

print(tokens_without_sw) 

Output:

['Nick', 'football', ',', 'fond', 'tennis', '.']

The following script removes the word "not" from the set of stop words in Gensim:

from gensim.parsing.preprocessing import STOPWORDS

all_stopwords_gensim = STOPWORDS
sw_list = {"not"}
all_stopwords_gensim = STOPWORDS.difference(sw_list)

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
text_tokens = word_tokenize(text)
tokens_without_sw = [word for word in text_tokens if not word in all_stopwords_gensim]

print(tokens_without_sw)

Using the SpaCy Library 

Adding and Removing Stop Words in SpaCy Default Stop Word List
Like the other NLP libraries, you can also add or remove stop words from the default stop word list in Spacy. But before that, we will see a list of all the existing stop words in SpaCy.

As of this writing, SpaCy has 326 Stop Words:

{'whence', 'here', 'show', 'were', 'why', 'n’t', 'the', 'whereupon', 'not', 'more', 'how', 'eight', 'indeed', 'i', 'only', 'via', 'nine', 're', 'themselves', 'almost', 'to', 'already', 'front', 'least', 'becomes', 'thereby', 'doing', 'her', 'together', 'be', 'often', 'then', 'quite', 'less', 'many', 'they', 'ourselves', 'take', 'its', 'yours', 'each', 'would', 'may', 'namely', 'do', 'whose', 'whether', 'side', 'both', 'what', 'between', 'toward', 'our', 'whereby', "'m", 'formerly', 'myself', 'had', 'really', 'call', 'keep', "'re", 'hereupon', 'can', 'their', 'eleven', '’m', 'even', 'around', 'twenty', 'mostly', 'did', 'at', 'an', 'seems', 'serious', 'against', "n't", 'except', 'has', 'five', 'he', 'last', '‘ve', 'because', 'we', 'himself', 'yet', 'something', 'somehow', '‘m', 'towards', 'his', 'six', 'anywhere', 'us', '‘d', 'thru', 'thus', 'which', 'everything', 'become', 'herein', 'one', 'in', 'although', 'sometime', 'give', 'cannot', 'besides', 'across', 'noone', 'ever', 'that', 'over', 'among', 'during', 'however', 'when', 'sometimes', 'still', 'seemed', 'get', "'ve", 'him', 'with', 'part', 'beyond', 'everyone', 'same', 'this', 'latterly', 'no', 'regarding', 'elsewhere', 'others', 'moreover', 'else', 'back', 'alone', 'somewhere', 'are', 'will', 'beforehand', 'ten', 'very', 'most', 'three', 'former', '’re', 'otherwise', 'several', 'also', 'whatever', 'am', 'becoming', 'beside', '’s', 'nothing', 'some', 'since', 'thence', 'anyway', 'out', 'up', 'well', 'it', 'various', 'four', 'top', '‘s', 'than', 'under', 'might', 'could', 'by', 'too', 'and', 'whom', '‘ll', 'say', 'therefore', "'s", 'other', 'throughout', 'became', 'your', 'put', 'per', "'ll", 'fifteen', 'must', 'before', 'whenever', 'anyone', 'without', 'does', 'was', 'where', 'thereafter', "'d", 'another', 'yourselves', 'n‘t', 'see', 'go', 'wherever', 'just', 'seeming', 'hence', 'full', 'whereafter', 'bottom', 'whole', 'own', 'empty', 'due', 'behind', 'while', 'onto', 'wherein', 'off', 'again', 'a', 'two', 'above', 'therein', 'sixty', 'those', 'whereas', 'using', 'latter', 'used', 'my', 'herself', 'hers', 'or', 'neither', 'forty', 'thereupon', 'now', 'after', 'yourself', 'whither', 'rather', 'once', 'from', 'until', 'anything', 'few', 'into', 'such', 'being', 'make', 'mine', 'please', 'along', 'hundred', 'should', 'below', 'third', 'unless', 'upon', 'perhaps', 'ours', 'but', 'never', 'whoever', 'fifty', 'any', 'all', 'nobody', 'there', 'have', 'anyhow', 'of', 'seem', 'down', 'is', 'every', '’ll', 'much', 'none', 'further', 'me', 'who', 'nevertheless', 'about', 'everywhere', 'name', 'enough', '’d', 'next', 'meanwhile', 'though', 'through', 'on', 'first', 'been', 'hereby', 'if', 'move', 'so', 'either', 'amongst', 'for', 'twelve', 'nor', 'she', 'always', 'these', 'as', '’ve', 'amount', '‘re', 'someone', 'afterwards', 'you', 'nowhere', 'itself', 'done', 'hereafter', 'within', 'made', 'ca', 'them'} 

The output shows that there 326 stop words in the default list of stop words in the SpaCy library.

Adding Stop Words to Default SpaCy Stop Words List
The SpaCy stop word list is basically a set of strings. You can add a new word to the set like you would add any new item to a set.

Look at the following script in which we add the word tennis to existing list of stop words in Spacy:

import spacy
sp = spacy.load('en_core_web_sm')

all_stopwords = sp.Defaults.stop_words
all_stopwords.add("tennis")

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
text_tokens = word_tokenize(text)
tokens_without_sw = [word for word in text_tokens if not word in all_stopwords]

print(tokens_without_sw) 

Output

['Nick', 'likes', 'play', 'football', ',', 'fond', '.']

The output shows that the word tennis has been removed from the input sentence.

You can also add multiple words to the list of stop words in SpaCy as shown below. The following script adds likes and tennis to the list of stop words in SpaCy:

import spacy
sp = spacy.load('en_core_web_sm')

all_stopwords = sp.Defaults.stop_words
all_stopwords |= {"likes","tennis",}

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
text_tokens = word_tokenize(text)
tokens_without_sw = [word for word in text_tokens if not word in all_stopwords]

print(tokens_without_sw) 

Output:

['Nick', 'play', 'football', ',', 'fond', '.']

The ouput shows that the words 'likes' and 'tennis' both have been removed from the input sentence.

Removing Stop Words from Default SpaCy Stop Words List 
To remove a word from the set of stop words in SpaCy, you can pass the word to remove to the remove method of the set.

The following script removes the word "not" from the set of stop words in SpaCy:

import spacy
sp = spacy.load('en_core_web_sm')

all_stopwords = sp.Defaults.stop_words
all_stopwords.remove('not')

text = "Nick likes to play football, however he is not too fond of tennis."
text_tokens = word_tokenize(text)
tokens_without_sw = [word for word in text_tokens if not word in all_stopwords]

print(tokens_without_sw) 

Output:

['Nick', 'play', 'football', ',', 'not', 'fond', '.']

In the output, you can see that the word 'not' has not been removed from the input sentence.