National level meeting on total withdrawal of Coca-Cola in Plachimada
Kerala, India
Dear friends,
Vilayodi Venugopalan
Plachimada Anti Coca-cola Struggle Committee
Kannimari PO
Palakkadakil, Kerala (India)
Tel: (+91) 9946373474
Email: plachimada2002@rediffmail.com
Plachimada Struugle Solidarity Committee
Tel: (+91) 9447019546
Email: harithamythri@gmail.com
National level meeting on total withdrawal of Coca-Cola in Plachimada
Kerala, India
Dear friends,
Vilayodi Venugopalan
Plachimada Anti Coca-cola Struggle Committee
Kannimari PO
Palakkadakil, Kerala (India)
Tel: (+91) 9946373474
Email: plachimada2002@rediffmail.com
Plachimada Struugle Solidarity Committee
Tel: (+91) 9447019546
Email: harithamythri@gmail.com
Film Stars to not endorse tobacco, junk foods and alcohol on-screen: Ramadoss
"Most importantly, is it going to hold tobacco corporations accountable and put a check on misleading, surreptitious and deceitful tobacco promotions they unabashedly indulge in?"
he cigarette and other tobacco products Act (2003), repeated requests and appeals by health activists and India’s Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss to film stars to desist from smoking on screen and also from brand placement, the incidence of tobacco use in films is only rising.
Dr Ramadoss again appealed to the film-stars to be socially responsible and not smoke on-screen in the larger interest of the youth of the nation. He made a “passionate request” to film stars and other celebrities to stop endorsing cigarettes and other tobacco products on-screen.
“Eighty percent of movies have smoking scenes and studies show that majority of the youngsters take up smoking under the influence of celebrities,” said Dr Ramadoss.
Just last week, the legal proceeding against Amitabh Bachchan, was quashed by a session's court in
Filmstars should also desist from endorsing junk food and alcohol, added Dr Ramadoss.
He agreed that although 
“We will try and bring in school teachers, NCC cadets and various NGOs as legal enforcers,” Ramadoss said. “We are planning to introduce tobacco control at the school level also”, he added.
Apart from this, the ministry would launch a host of commercial spots and advertisements in print as well as the electronic media, he said.
But is this enough? Is it going to be effective in controlling tobacco use in
Published in:
Scoop Independent News, New Zealand
Central Chronicle, India
Film Stars to not endorse tobacco, junk foods and alcohol on-screen: Ramadoss
"Most importantly, is it going to hold tobacco corporations accountable and put a check on misleading, surreptitious and deceitful tobacco promotions they unabashedly indulge in?"
he cigarette and other tobacco products Act (2003), repeated requests and appeals by health activists and India’s Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss to film stars to desist from smoking on screen and also from brand placement, the incidence of tobacco use in films is only rising.
Dr Ramadoss again appealed to the film-stars to be socially responsible and not smoke on-screen in the larger interest of the youth of the nation. He made a “passionate request” to film stars and other celebrities to stop endorsing cigarettes and other tobacco products on-screen.
“Eighty percent of movies have smoking scenes and studies show that majority of the youngsters take up smoking under the influence of celebrities,” said Dr Ramadoss.
Just last week, the legal proceeding against Amitabh Bachchan, was quashed by a session's court in
Filmstars should also desist from endorsing junk food and alcohol, added Dr Ramadoss.
He agreed that although
“We will try and bring in school teachers, NCC cadets and various NGOs as legal enforcers,” Ramadoss said. “We are planning to introduce tobacco control at the school level also”, he added.
Apart from this, the ministry would launch a host of commercial spots and advertisements in print as well as the electronic media, he said.
But is this enough? Is it going to be effective in controlling tobacco use in
Published in:
Scoop Independent News, New Zealand
Central Chronicle, India
Orissa: An Economic Scam Coming?
Sandip Dasverma and Sanat Mohanty
“The Government of Orissa, desirous of utilizing its natural resources and rapidly industrializing the State, so as to bring prosperity and wellbeing to its people, has been making determined efforts to establish new industries in different locations. In this context, the Government of Orissa have been seeking to identify suitable promoters to establish new Integrated Steel Plants in view of the rich iron ore and coal deposits in the State.”
In the MoU, POSCO plans investment of approximately USD 12 Billion or Rs 48,000 crores. The numbers are awesome. Rs 48,000 crores could do much for a state that is faced with one of the poorest social and economic indices in the nation – in terms of literacy, health care, nutrition and mortality, earning power, etc. As part of Phase I, POSCO plans on setting up projects worth Rs 21,900 crores by 2012 and projects worth 21,500 crores as part of Phase II by 2016.
POSCO will set up an Indian subsidiary headquartered in
In a show of good intentions, the MoU also notes that:
“The Government of Orissa appreciates that the Company will be a responsible corporate house with a high involvement in employees' welfare and social development.”
The Oriya community is thus thrilled at the prospect of a major multinational investing in setting up the biggest iron and steel project in Orissa which will not only bring in an unheard amount of investment into the state but also provide for jobs and townships to help develop the people of the state. The Government of Orissa must be proud for having pulled this off.
And yet, there has been significant hue and cry on this deal. Environmentalist crying about a waterfall that could die – who cares about it when people are dying from starvation! Hills and scenic beauty will disappear – who cares if it provides stable livelihoods to a significant fraction or Orissa's people. Even the discussion on the Ridley turtles seems ridiculous from this perspective. The people of Orissa seem justified in arguing that similar penalties were paid in the development of Maharashtra, Karnataka or other more developed parts of
It is also fair to truly understand the details of this economic benefit that Government of Orissa believes will come to Orissa.
The Direct Economic Component
As part of the initial deal, POSCO has promised a flat rate of royalty at Rs 27/tonne of iron ore to the Government of Orissa (for ore with at least 62% iron content). This results in less than Rs 1620 crores to Government of Orissa over time of the contract of 600 Million Tonnes.
The current global market rate of iron ore is over USD100/tonne. In December 2007, the market was at USD 120/tonne. By this rate, 600 million tonnes of iron ore (that POSCO would mine) at greater than 62% iron content would result in Rs 240,000 crores. Wow! We suddenly realize that POSCO has effectively been given this ore free. Accounting for mining costs and the total investment package (less than 10% of the costs) the people and the state of Orissa are getting less than 1% of open market price of iron ore.
This is not a special deal for POSCO – similar (though smaller) deals are in the works with Tatas, Vedanta, Jindal, etc. Why is the Government of Orissa (and the Central Government) pursuing such deals? People in the business point to the strength of special interest groups and the mining lobby and that all political parties have received their dues from the lobby. Processes are encumbered with corruption – every truck load mined needs to pay the local MLA Rs 500 and a similar amount goes to the party coffers.
For all the excitement among the Oriya community, there have been few demanding accountability from Government of Orissa - why is the Government of Orissa is selling the ores at less than 1% of the global price. Surely, more money coming into the state coffer will be more helpful for people, will lead to more development?
After detailed analysis, some groups have demanded that the Government of Orissa set the royalty at 50% of market price, and that if the iron ore were to be converted to steel outside the state, the royalty be 80%. Even at this high a royalty, POSCO will be profitable. While Government of Orissa argued that this would allow other states to undercut Orissa and get a better deal, critics have suggested that these states form a coalition, like Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to set prices. Such a coalition including the 5 states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Karnataka and Rajasthan is underway. Chief Ministers from these states met with the Prime Minister of India, on 19th of December and demanded a 20% royalty down from public demand of 50%. The Central Government of India haggled and is considering a royalty of 7.5-10%. The Government of Orissa seems too readily satisfied with this suggestion.
Such pressure does make the state respond. Now the state of Orissa will receive Rs 18,000 to 24,000 Crore in royalty (if this is made binding) as opposed to 1620 crores as per the earlier plan.
What reasons force these governments to undersell minerals at >90% below market prices? The state government has been very unwilling to provide details of the transactions, with the Government of Orissa initially claiming that disclosing such details of public funds went against confidentiality agreements (unless there are security threats, democratic governments globally have provided details of deals with private agencies). Why should Government of Orissa, with an annual budget of 4500 crores, let go 108,000 crores or 3600 crores per year for next 30 years and be satisfied with 600 crores/ year? (50% of 216,000 crores the price of 600 MT of
Sandip Dasverma and Sanat Mohanty
Published in:
Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India (29 March 2008)
The Seoul Times, South Korea (29 March 2008)
Scoop Independent News, New Zealand (29 March 2008)
Orissa: An Economic Scam Coming?
Sandip Dasverma and Sanat Mohanty
“The Government of Orissa, desirous of utilizing its natural resources and rapidly industrializing the State, so as to bring prosperity and wellbeing to its people, has been making determined efforts to establish new industries in different locations. In this context, the Government of Orissa have been seeking to identify suitable promoters to establish new Integrated Steel Plants in view of the rich iron ore and coal deposits in the State.”
In the MoU, POSCO plans investment of approximately USD 12 Billion or Rs 48,000 crores. The numbers are awesome. Rs 48,000 crores could do much for a state that is faced with one of the poorest social and economic indices in the nation – in terms of literacy, health care, nutrition and mortality, earning power, etc. As part of Phase I, POSCO plans on setting up projects worth Rs 21,900 crores by 2012 and projects worth 21,500 crores as part of Phase II by 2016.
POSCO will set up an Indian subsidiary headquartered in
In a show of good intentions, the MoU also notes that:
“The Government of Orissa appreciates that the Company will be a responsible corporate house with a high involvement in employees' welfare and social development.”
The Oriya community is thus thrilled at the prospect of a major multinational investing in setting up the biggest iron and steel project in Orissa which will not only bring in an unheard amount of investment into the state but also provide for jobs and townships to help develop the people of the state. The Government of Orissa must be proud for having pulled this off.
And yet, there has been significant hue and cry on this deal. Environmentalist crying about a waterfall that could die – who cares about it when people are dying from starvation! Hills and scenic beauty will disappear – who cares if it provides stable livelihoods to a significant fraction or Orissa's people. Even the discussion on the Ridley turtles seems ridiculous from this perspective. The people of Orissa seem justified in arguing that similar penalties were paid in the development of Maharashtra, Karnataka or other more developed parts of
It is also fair to truly understand the details of this economic benefit that Government of Orissa believes will come to Orissa.
The Direct Economic Component
As part of the initial deal, POSCO has promised a flat rate of royalty at Rs 27/tonne of iron ore to the Government of Orissa (for ore with at least 62% iron content). This results in less than Rs 1620 crores to Government of Orissa over time of the contract of 600 Million Tonnes.
The current global market rate of iron ore is over USD100/tonne. In December 2007, the market was at USD 120/tonne. By this rate, 600 million tonnes of iron ore (that POSCO would mine) at greater than 62% iron content would result in Rs 240,000 crores. Wow! We suddenly realize that POSCO has effectively been given this ore free. Accounting for mining costs and the total investment package (less than 10% of the costs) the people and the state of Orissa are getting less than 1% of open market price of iron ore.
This is not a special deal for POSCO – similar (though smaller) deals are in the works with Tatas, Vedanta, Jindal, etc. Why is the Government of Orissa (and the Central Government) pursuing such deals? People in the business point to the strength of special interest groups and the mining lobby and that all political parties have received their dues from the lobby. Processes are encumbered with corruption – every truck load mined needs to pay the local MLA Rs 500 and a similar amount goes to the party coffers.
For all the excitement among the Oriya community, there have been few demanding accountability from Government of Orissa - why is the Government of Orissa is selling the ores at less than 1% of the global price. Surely, more money coming into the state coffer will be more helpful for people, will lead to more development?
After detailed analysis, some groups have demanded that the Government of Orissa set the royalty at 50% of market price, and that if the iron ore were to be converted to steel outside the state, the royalty be 80%. Even at this high a royalty, POSCO will be profitable. While Government of Orissa argued that this would allow other states to undercut Orissa and get a better deal, critics have suggested that these states form a coalition, like Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to set prices. Such a coalition including the 5 states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Karnataka and Rajasthan is underway. Chief Ministers from these states met with the Prime Minister of India, on 19th of December and demanded a 20% royalty down from public demand of 50%. The Central Government of India haggled and is considering a royalty of 7.5-10%. The Government of Orissa seems too readily satisfied with this suggestion.
Such pressure does make the state respond. Now the state of Orissa will receive Rs 18,000 to 24,000 Crore in royalty (if this is made binding) as opposed to 1620 crores as per the earlier plan.
What reasons force these governments to undersell minerals at >90% below market prices? The state government has been very unwilling to provide details of the transactions, with the Government of Orissa initially claiming that disclosing such details of public funds went against confidentiality agreements (unless there are security threats, democratic governments globally have provided details of deals with private agencies). Why should Government of Orissa, with an annual budget of 4500 crores, let go 108,000 crores or 3600 crores per year for next 30 years and be satisfied with 600 crores/ year? (50% of 216,000 crores the price of 600 MT of
Sandip Dasverma and Sanat Mohanty
Published in:
Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India (29 March 2008)
The Seoul Times, South Korea (29 March 2008)
Scoop Independent News, New Zealand (29 March 2008)
Can we stop drug-resistant TB too?
Drug-resistant TB has been recorded in the world at the highest levels ever according to the World Health Organization (WHO) report (Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Resistance in the World, February 2008).
DOTS (directly-observed treatment short-course), is the internationally recommended TB control strategy that includes standardized case detection, treatment and patient support. It requires consistent drug supply and effective monitoring systems. According to WHO, drug resistant TB is a symptom of poor programme performance. If we hope to change the outcome, and decrease the proportion of drug resistant TB, doesn't the DOTS model need to be adapted or its implementation improved? More of the same might only compound the TB drug resistance threat.
The African, South-East Asian and Western pacific regions account for 83% of total TB case notifications according to the Global Tuberculosis Control report of WHO (March 2008). China, India and Indonesia are home to two-in-three of the world's TB cases. The Africa region has the highest TB incidence rate. These countries are expanding coverage of its TB programme at record-breaking speed. In its shadow, drug resistance is also upping the pace.
The proportion of resistance to at least one anti-TB drug (any resistance) was found to be as high as 56.3% in Azerbaijan.
Multi drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is defined as TB with resistance to isoniazid and rifampicin, the two most powerful first line anti-TB drugs. MDR-TB patients have significantly poor outcomes than patients with drug susceptible TB.
Global estimates indicate that 4.8% of TB cases were of MDR-TB (about half a million MDR-TB patients). Currently treatment is available only to one out of ten MDR-TB patients and 90% of MDR-TB patients cannot have access to treatment they need today.
About 50% of MDR-TB cases are in India and China because of large population. In Africa, hard-hit by HIV, the proportion of TB drug-resistance is no less alarming. In former Soviet Union, almost half of all TB cases are resistant to at least one anti-TB drug and every fifth case of TB will be of MDR-TB.
Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) is virtually untreatable and likely to emerge where second-line anti-TB drugs are widely and inappropriately used. XDR-TB is more expensive and difficult to treat than MDR-TB and outcomes for patients are much worse with mortality rates very high. So far 46 countries have reported XDR-TB with UK reporting the first XDR-TB case last week.
Studies suggest that transmission of TB, especially the drug-resistant strains is more likely to take place where people living with HIV (PLHIV) congregate. Healthcare settings, for example those for anti-retroviral (ARV) delivery, is one such place where improper infection control can put PLHIV at risk of contracting TB. TB is the most common opportunistic infection and leading cause of death for PLHIV. Improving infection control in healthcare settings is clearly vital, doable and potentially life saving.
In many countries insufficient laboratory capacity to test drug-resistance is a serious impediment in scaling up TB programmes. Even the new WHO report on TB drug-resistance had data only from 6 African countries because other countries had no laboratory capacity to provide data on anti-TB drug-resistance. Developing laboratories to provide rapid diagnosis of anti-TB drug-resistance, particularly for PLHIV, is of utmost importance to improve TB responses.
Not only more and better TB drugs and diagnostics in the public sector are urgently needed but also better strategies to make TB control programmes work more effectively for the most vulnerable and hard to reach communities are essential to improving treatment adherence and, as a consequence, reducing drug resistance.
Published in:Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India
Assam Times, Assam, India
The Brunei Times, Brunei DarussalamMedia for Freedom, Nepal
Can we stop drug-resistant TB too?
Drug-resistant TB has been recorded in the world at the highest levels ever according to the World Health Organization (WHO) report (Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Resistance in the World, February 2008).
DOTS (directly-observed treatment short-course), is the internationally recommended TB control strategy that includes standardized case detection, treatment and patient support. It requires consistent drug supply and effective monitoring systems. According to WHO, drug resistant TB is a symptom of poor programme performance. If we hope to change the outcome, and decrease the proportion of drug resistant TB, doesn't the DOTS model need to be adapted or its implementation improved? More of the same might only compound the TB drug resistance threat.
The African, South-East Asian and Western pacific regions account for 83% of total TB case notifications according to the Global Tuberculosis Control report of WHO (March 2008). China, India and Indonesia are home to two-in-three of the world's TB cases. The Africa region has the highest TB incidence rate. These countries are expanding coverage of its TB programme at record-breaking speed. In its shadow, drug resistance is also upping the pace.
The proportion of resistance to at least one anti-TB drug (any resistance) was found to be as high as 56.3% in Azerbaijan.
Multi drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is defined as TB with resistance to isoniazid and rifampicin, the two most powerful first line anti-TB drugs. MDR-TB patients have significantly poor outcomes than patients with drug susceptible TB.
Global estimates indicate that 4.8% of TB cases were of MDR-TB (about half a million MDR-TB patients). Currently treatment is available only to one out of ten MDR-TB patients and 90% of MDR-TB patients cannot have access to treatment they need today.
About 50% of MDR-TB cases are in India and China because of large population. In Africa, hard-hit by HIV, the proportion of TB drug-resistance is no less alarming. In former Soviet Union, almost half of all TB cases are resistant to at least one anti-TB drug and every fifth case of TB will be of MDR-TB.
Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) is virtually untreatable and likely to emerge where second-line anti-TB drugs are widely and inappropriately used. XDR-TB is more expensive and difficult to treat than MDR-TB and outcomes for patients are much worse with mortality rates very high. So far 46 countries have reported XDR-TB with UK reporting the first XDR-TB case last week.
Studies suggest that transmission of TB, especially the drug-resistant strains is more likely to take place where people living with HIV (PLHIV) congregate. Healthcare settings, for example those for anti-retroviral (ARV) delivery, is one such place where improper infection control can put PLHIV at risk of contracting TB. TB is the most common opportunistic infection and leading cause of death for PLHIV. Improving infection control in healthcare settings is clearly vital, doable and potentially life saving.
In many countries insufficient laboratory capacity to test drug-resistance is a serious impediment in scaling up TB programmes. Even the new WHO report on TB drug-resistance had data only from 6 African countries because other countries had no laboratory capacity to provide data on anti-TB drug-resistance. Developing laboratories to provide rapid diagnosis of anti-TB drug-resistance, particularly for PLHIV, is of utmost importance to improve TB responses.
Not only more and better TB drugs and diagnostics in the public sector are urgently needed but also better strategies to make TB control programmes work more effectively for the most vulnerable and hard to reach communities are essential to improving treatment adherence and, as a consequence, reducing drug resistance.
Published in:Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India
Assam Times, Assam, India
The Brunei Times, Brunei DarussalamMedia for Freedom, Nepal
Special article on
World Water Day, 22 March 2008
Who will pay US$ 80 billion to halve the no. of people without basic sanitation?
How will 
On this year’s World Water Day (22 March 2008), to put the spotlight on sanitation the United Nations General Assembly declared the year 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation. The goal is to raise awareness and to accelerate progress towards the MDG targets to halve the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.
Where is the estimated US$ 10 billion annual cost to achieve this MDG target by 2015 going to come from? From 2008-2015, we will need US$ 80 billion to achieve this target which will halve the number of 2.6 billion people who presently have no access to basic sanitation (and even if we achieve this MDG target it will still leave the other half (1.3 billion people) without access to basic sanitation in 2015!).
This amount is less than 1% of world military spending in 2005, one-third of the estimated global spending on bottled water, or about as much as Europeans spend on ice cream each year.
“Private corporations, including the bottled water companies, who have largely demonstrated ruthless capital-intensive approach with blatant disregard to environmental or ecological aspects depriving local communities from access to natural resources, should be the ones to foot this bill. Not the public sector or governments of developing countries” says Dr Sandeep Pandey, Ramon Magsaysay awardee (2002) and Convener of National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM).
Aggressive marketing targeted at those ‘who-have-money-to-pay’ has contributed extensively to exacerbate the gap between the rich and poor communities. This has not only jeopardized basic human rights to life and dignity of the underserved communities, but also left the ‘rich’ with a mountainous burden of lifestyle diseases to deal with.
Water is a public good, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Increasing corporate control of water is undoubtedly alarming.
“Corporations are contributing to, and then profiting from, the global water crisis,” had said Kathryn Mulvey, Executive Director of Corporate Accountability International. She stressed further that “One of the greatest threats to people’s access to water today is that corporate use of water is often prioritized over people’s daily use.”
The money required to achieve MDG goals by halving the number of people who don’t have access to basic sanitation is ONE-THIRD of the global spending on bottled water. “If one-third of the profits from bottled water companies can help 1.3 billion people to get access to basic sanitation, not doing that and letting bottled water companies mint money is outrageous” asserts Dr Pandey.
As water becomes more precious, corporations like Coke, Pepsi, Nestlé,
As natural rights, water rights are usufructuary rights (water can be used but not owned). People have a right to life and the resources that sustain it, such as water. The necessity of water to life is why, under customary laws, the right to water has been accepted as a natural, social fact.
That is why governments and corporations cannot alienate people of their water rights. On this World Water Day and beyond, not only we need to challenge the alarming corporate control of water, but also stake a claim to financial and natural resources that rightfully should be utilized to provide access to basic sanitation to all.
Published so far in:
The Japan Times, Japan
The Yemen Times, Yemen
The Seoul Times, South Korea
The Zimbabwe Times, Zimbabwe
The Brunei Times, Brunei Darussalam
Assam Times, Assam, India
Scoop Independent News, New Zealand
Asian Tribune (Thailand/ Sri Lanka)
News Blaze, US
The New Nation, Bangladesh
Kathmandu Post, Nepal
Mauritius Times, Mauritius
Special article on
World Water Day, 22 March 2008
Who will pay US$ 80 billion to halve the no. of people without basic sanitation?
How will
On this year’s World Water Day (22 March 2008), to put the spotlight on sanitation the United Nations General Assembly declared the year 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation. The goal is to raise awareness and to accelerate progress towards the MDG targets to halve the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.
Where is the estimated US$ 10 billion annual cost to achieve this MDG target by 2015 going to come from? From 2008-2015, we will need US$ 80 billion to achieve this target which will halve the number of 2.6 billion people who presently have no access to basic sanitation (and even if we achieve this MDG target it will still leave the other half (1.3 billion people) without access to basic sanitation in 2015!).
This amount is less than 1% of world military spending in 2005, one-third of the estimated global spending on bottled water, or about as much as Europeans spend on ice cream each year.
“Private corporations, including the bottled water companies, who have largely demonstrated ruthless capital-intensive approach with blatant disregard to environmental or ecological aspects depriving local communities from access to natural resources, should be the ones to foot this bill. Not the public sector or governments of developing countries” says Dr Sandeep Pandey, Ramon Magsaysay awardee (2002) and Convener of National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM).
Aggressive marketing targeted at those ‘who-have-money-to-pay’ has contributed extensively to exacerbate the gap between the rich and poor communities. This has not only jeopardized basic human rights to life and dignity of the underserved communities, but also left the ‘rich’ with a mountainous burden of lifestyle diseases to deal with.
Water is a public good, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Increasing corporate control of water is undoubtedly alarming.
“Corporations are contributing to, and then profiting from, the global water crisis,” had said Kathryn Mulvey, Executive Director of Corporate Accountability International. She stressed further that “One of the greatest threats to people’s access to water today is that corporate use of water is often prioritized over people’s daily use.”
The money required to achieve MDG goals by halving the number of people who don’t have access to basic sanitation is ONE-THIRD of the global spending on bottled water. “If one-third of the profits from bottled water companies can help 1.3 billion people to get access to basic sanitation, not doing that and letting bottled water companies mint money is outrageous” asserts Dr Pandey.
As water becomes more precious, corporations like Coke, Pepsi, Nestlé,
As natural rights, water rights are usufructuary rights (water can be used but not owned). People have a right to life and the resources that sustain it, such as water. The necessity of water to life is why, under customary laws, the right to water has been accepted as a natural, social fact.
That is why governments and corporations cannot alienate people of their water rights. On this World Water Day and beyond, not only we need to challenge the alarming corporate control of water, but also stake a claim to financial and natural resources that rightfully should be utilized to provide access to basic sanitation to all.
Published so far in:
The Japan Times, Japan
The Yemen Times, Yemen
The Seoul Times, South Korea
The Zimbabwe Times, Zimbabwe
The Brunei Times, Brunei Darussalam
Assam Times, Assam, India
Scoop Independent News, New Zealand
Asian Tribune (Thailand/ Sri Lanka)
News Blaze, US
The New Nation, Bangladesh
Kathmandu Post, Nepal
Mauritius Times, Mauritius
Posts
All Comments
