UN Calls Water Top Priority

Editor:
The UN and “Big Business” want to control your electrical system and now they want your water. The sovereignty of your country and your freedom are at stake. The “New World Order” is not just knocking on your door, they are determined to kick it down. Don’t forget Bolivia

BOLIVIA: Bechtel Drops $50 Million Claim to Settle Bolivian WaterDispute Environmental News Service
January 19th, 2006Bechtel, a global engineering and construction company based in San Francisco, today reached agreement with the government of Bolivia, dropping a legal demand for $50 million after a revolt over privatizing water services in the city of Cochabamba forced the company out of Bolivia in April 2000.

   UN Calls Water Top Priority

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) – U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the world on Thursday to put the looming crisis over water shortages at the top of the global agenda this year and take action to prevent conflicts over scarce supplies.

He reminded business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum that the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan was touched off by drought—and he said shortages of water contribute to poverty and social hardship in Somalia, Chad, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Haiti, Colombia and Kazakhstan.

“Too often, where we need water we find guns instead,” Ban said. “Population growth will make the problem worse. So will climate change. As the global economy grows, so will its thirst. Many more conflicts lie just over the horizon.”

He said a recent report identified 46 countries with 2.7 billion people where climate change and water-related crises create “a high risk of violent conflict” and a further 56 countries, with 1.2 billion people “are at high risk of violent conflict.” The report was by International Alert, an independent peacebuilding organization based in London.

Ban told the VIP audience that he spent 2007 “banging my drum on climate change,” an issue the Forum also had as one of its main themes last year. He welcomed the focus on water this year saying the session should be named: “Water is running out.”

“We need to adapt to this reality, just as we do to climate change,” he said. “There is still enough water for all of us—but only so long as we can keep it clean, use it more wisely, and share it fairly.”

Ban said he will invite world leaders to “a critical high-level meeting” in September to focus on meeting U.N. development goals—including cutting by half the number of people without access to safe drinking water by 2015—particularly in Africa.

Ban’s call for global action on water got strong support from several top business executives.

“Water is today’s issue,” said Andrew Liveris, chairman and CEO of Dow Chemical Co., the world’s second largest chemical company. “It is the oil of this century, not a question.”

E. Neville Isdell, chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Co., said “this is an issue which ranks next to climate change. … However, water has got lost as part of the climate change debate.”

Isdell urged the world to “raise the issue of water to the level that we have managed to raise the issue of climate change.”

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman and CEO of Nestle SA, the world’s biggest food and drink company, said “time is still on our side but time is running out, just like water is running out.”

Ban urged top business executives to join a U.N. project to help poor people gain access to clean water—and he praised Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and Nestle for their programs and their efforts to be part of the water solution.

Source

Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to “UN Calls Water Top Priority”

  1. Black Sheep Says:

    So UN Secretary General Ban is parading Coca Cola, Dow and Nestle as saviours.

    Isn’t some local of the Canadian Auto Workers sponsoring awidow and her children whose husband was singled out of a crowd and gunned down in broad daylight. Coincidentally he was a union organizer at Coca Cola in Columbia. Just a coincidence of course.

    Looks like the Global Compact have managed to install themselves at the UN and the UN has ignored the pleas of citizen groups per

    http://www.infactcanada.ca/allian_facf_un.htm

    Dear Mr. Toepfer, Mr. Malloch, Mr. Ramcharan, Mr. Magariños, and Mr. Somavia:

    We are writing today to call on you to end your agency’s participation in the Global Compact. We believe that the Global Compact, though started with good intentions by Secretary General Kofi Annan, is counterproductive. The Global Compact allows the name and reputation of the UN to be abused by corporations whose practices are in contradiction with the values of the UN. Partnerships with these corporations damage the integrity and mission of your agency and of the United Nations.

    As an illustration, this letter describes the events surrounding the high profile participation of Nestlé in the Global Compact, even as the company continues its long history of violating UN principles and undermining regulatory efforts. We also describe the use of the Global Compact by participating lobby groups as a rhetorical weapon in the effort to prevent progress on the UN Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.

    We have chosen Nestlé because its practices have long been a subject of scrutiny, because its political and public relations practices have been directly at odds with specific UN measures, and because the Global Compact Office was specifically informed of these facts. Despite all this, Nestlé has been allowed to participate. Moreover, Nestlé has been allowed to provide financial support to a Global Compact Symposium, at which it was singled out for praise by the Compact’s top officer.

    Nestlé’s participation is not an isolated example that can be fixed by expelling the company but rather part of the design and philosophy of the Global Compact, as we will describe.

    Nestlé is one of the most consistent violators of the International Code on the Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, according to monitoring of the marketing practices of infant food manufacturers over the past twenty years. The International Code was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981 and has since become an accepted human rights instrument.

    Therefore, the inclusion of Nestlé in the Global Compact contradicts UN policies. It clearly violates the Secretary General’s July 17th 2000 Guidelines on UN Cooperation with the Business Community, which state that companies that violate human rights “are not eligible for partnership.” It also contradicts the 2001 UNICEF Guidelines for Working with the Business Community, which specifically exclude “manufacturers of infant formula whose marketing practices violate the International Code for the Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes” as potential allies.

    The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) has tried to attract the Global Compact’s Office’s attention to the fact that the admission of Nestlé as a participant to the Global Compact will be detrimental to international efforts to hold the infant food TNC accountable for its marketing practices.

    IBFAN first expressed concern formally about Nestlé in a December 15, 2000 letter to the Executive Director of UNICEF which was copied to the Global Compact Office. In January 2001, Assistant Secretary General John Ruggie, one of the architects of the Global Compact, wrote to IBFAN that Nestle was “not involved in the Global Compact…[had not] shown any sign of being ‘anxious’ to participate…nor have we sought their participation.”

    Despite ongoing correspondence on the matter, IBFAN was not informed when Nestlé became a Global Compact company. In October 2002, IBFAN learned that Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmath would be a featured plenary speaker at that month’s Symposium on the UN Global Compact and Swiss Business. The program of the Conference acknowledged “the support of Nestlé is making this event possible.” At that Symposium, according to those in attendance, Global Compact Executive Head Georg Kell singled out Nestlé as one of four exemplary Swiss companies for its socially responsible employment practices. In response to a question from the floor about Nestlé’s participation and its responsibility for harm to infant health, Mr. Kell said that was a “single-issue” concern, and that the Global Compact had “wider aims.”

    In other words, Nestlé gained the praise of the UN Global Compact and the dismissal of its critics – experts on breast feeding and regulation of marketing of breast-milk substitutes – at a Symposium that it supported financially. This happened despite repeated denials by the Global Compact Office that it gives approval to participating companies, and its insistence that civil society participation is integral to the success of this initiative.

    In reflecting on these circumstances, it is important to remember that Nestlé is an extremely high profile company. The company has factories in 84 countries and owns some 6,000 brands, according to the Economist. According to its financial statements, Nestlé’s market capitalization is about $8.6 billion, sales in 2002 were some $66 billion and after tax profits over $5 billion. More important, Nestlé is one of the more notorious companies in the world, the subject of an international boycott that is still going today, due to its especially unethical advertising and marketing practices for baby food . The Global Compact Office was aware of these facts. Moreover, they were aware of the controversy the participation of Nestlé would cause within the community concerned with these issues. In other words, the decision to allow Nestlé’s high profile participation in the Global Compact was made with due consideration by the GC Office, and reflects its approach and philosophy toward private sector partnerships with the UN.

    The acceptance of Nestlé as a high profile participant in the Global Compact confirms that the Compact is pursuing partnership even with companies that are known to undermine the UN’s goals, principles and agreements. The pursuit of partnership in these circumstances cannot undo nor compensate for the harm Nestlé has done and continues to do through its basic business practices. Though UN officials stress that the Global Compact is not a membership based organization, the impression that Nestlé has gained the favor of the UN is unmistakeable. Also unmistakeable is the appearance of impropriety in allowing Nestlé to provide financial support to a Symposium at which a UN official praised Nestlé and marginalized its critics.

    The public presentation of Nestlé by the Executive Head of the Global Compact in circumstances that highlighted only positive aspects of its behavior, no matter how minor or unsubstantiated, while ignoring negative aspects, no matter how significant, seems to indicate a capture of the Global Compact by its corporate participants.

    Since July 2000, the Alliance for a Corporate Free UN has attempted to communicate serious concerns about the Compact to the Secretary General and to the Global Compact Office. We have written to the Secretary General several times, have published case studies, and various members of our Alliance have had ongoing communication with Global Compact staff.

    To summarize the concerns we have expressed to the Global Compact office:

    -The GC allows known human rights violators to participate, even though the Secretary General’s July 17th, 2000 Guidelines on UN Cooperation with the business community state that companies that violate human rights “are not eligible for partnership.”
    -The GC framework broadly aspires to partnership with companies, which we believe is a fundamentally wrong relationship between public institutions and the for-profit sector.
    -The GC exposes the UN’s reputation to being tarnished by socially and environmentally irresponsible corporations, while companies get a chance to ’bluewash’ their image and wrap themselves in the flag of the UN.
    -Many Global Compact participants have continued to violate one or more of its nine universally accepted principles since signing on.
    -The Global Compact gives the false impression that the aims and interests of business and the UN are one and the same, and that business interests are synonymous with public interests.

    In addition to these criticisms, we are calling your attention to the disturbing fact that some corporate participants in the Global Compact are working against international rules on human rights, thus undermining the overall goals of the Compact, and using the Global Compact as a justification for their opposition.

    As you know, since 1998 a sessional working group of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has been drawing up a document which would bring together a range of widely accepted obligations on corporations, drawn from existing, human rights, labour rights and environmental instruments. This work did not receive the same high-level support which the Global Compact was given throughout the years. It nevertheless resulted in the presentation, in July 2003, of the UN Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.

    Reacting to the Draft Norms, two major Global Compact partners, the International Chamber of Commerce and the International Organisation of Employers issued a joint statement which criticized the “binding and legalistic approach” of the Draft Norms. The two business associations described the proposed Draft Norms as “counterproductive to the UN’s ongoing efforts to encourage companies to support and observe human rights norms by participating in the Global Compact.” They said that the Draft Norms “risk inviting negative reaction from business, at a time when companies are increasingly engaging into voluntary initiatives to promote responsible business conduct.” The U.S. Council on International Business, the ICC’s U.S. affiliate, has also launched an attack on the Draft Norms, and refer to their “considerable efforts into developing voluntary codes” such as the Global Compact. The USCIB says these voluntary codes are a supplement to legislation, but claims erroneously that the Draft Norms aim to circumvent national laws.

    As environment, development and human rights groups, we believe in a strong UN, fully funded by governments, which maintains the integrity of international environmental and social agreements and that seeks to hold corporations accountable in a legal framework. Yet, we also believe in a UN that avoids excessive and undue corporate influence, and which holds commercial interests subservient to human rights, labor and environmental principles. Instead of bringing shared values into the market, the Global Compact threatens to bring commercialism into the UN. It rewards rhetoric rather than deeds, and it undermines our efforts to bring a measure of corporate accountability, rather than purely voluntary responsibility, into the intergovernmental arena.

    Kofi Annan has said that “cooperation [with the private sector] must be managed in a manner that does not compromise the independence and neutrality of the United Nations…” We believe that the inclusion of Nestlé as a Global Compact participant, and the use of the Global Compact to attack the Draft Norms, do in fact compromise the UN.

    Therefore, again, we call on you to end your agency’s participation in the Global Compact, in favor of initiatives that emphasize cooperation with groups that share the aims of the United Nations, and in favor of measures to hold powerful corporations accountable in an international legal framework.

    Sincerely,

    Kenny Bruno, EarthRights International
    Alison Linnecar International Baby Food Action Network
    Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network
    John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies
    Miloon Kothari, Habitat International Coalition
    Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch
    Anuradha Mittal, Food First
    Fiona Dove, Transnational Institute
    Susan George, ATTAC
    Tom Goldtooth, Indigenou Environment Network
    June Zeitline, Women’s Environment and Development Organization
    Rob Weissman, Essential Action
    Bobby Peek, groundWork
    Victor Menotti, International Forum on Globalization

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: