International Drug Abuse Day

Indepth op-ed published in 'Voice of Lucknow' India's National News Paper on International Day for Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking

By- Amit dwivedi

26 June, 2007

Court dismisses Bachchan's petition in cigar case

Court dismisses Bachchan's petition in cigar case

Times of India

26 June, 2007

PANAJI: A sessions court here has dismissed the revision application filed by the Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Limited challenging the order by a judicial magistrate to initiate action against Amitabh Bachchan in connection with a hoarding which showed the actor with a cigar in his mouth. National Organisation for Tobacco Eradication (NOTE) had filed a case against Bachchan, ABCL and D M S Films Private Limited and Anchor Daewoo India in connection with the hoarding erected on the national highway.

The hoarding had a photograph from the movie "Family". The judicial magistrate had summoned Bachchan and other respondents on November 29, which was challenged in the sessions court. NOTE had alleged that such hoardings were in gross violation of the cigarettes, tobacco and other related products (prohibition of advertisement and regulations of the trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution) Act and section 7 of the Goa Prohibition of Smoking and Spitting Act.

ABCL had said in the sessions court that, pending the hearing and disposal of its revision application, the process issued by the judicial magistrate should be stayed.

It had also sought ad-interim exparte relief. In the revision petition, ABCL had claimed that there was no prima facie case and the magistrate ought not to have issued process against it and Bachchan, who is the chairman of the company.

online available at- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Court_dismisses_Bachchans_petition_in_cigar_case/articleshow/2151148.cms

International Drug Abuse Day

Indepth op-ed on International Drug Abuse Day Published in Swatantra Bharat Indias national news paper.

June 25, 2007

By- Amit Dwivedi

Alert to protect global tobacco treaty

Alert to protect global tobacco treaty

Thursday, 21 June 2007,

Alert to protect global tobacco treaty before COP-II begins in Thailand

by Bobby Ramakant Thailand

The 2nd Conference of Parties (COP-II) meeting for Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) – the first global public health and corporate accountability treaty ( New Zealand ratified FCTC on 27 January 2004) shall begin at the end of this month in Thailand .

Corporate Accountability International (CAI, formerly Infact) has played a key-role as civil society watch organization along with Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT) from the very initial discussions of World Health Organization's FCTC. It continues to play a pivotal role in monitoring tobacco industry and gathering evidence to protect the public health. At the forthcoming COP-II meeting in Thailand, CAI is releasing a ground-breaking report which compiles evidence from civil society members across the world in outlining the three major issues impeding the FCTC implementation. These three public health challenges are:

To protect public health policy from tobacco industry influence
To prevent tobacco industry interference in agricultural diversification and alternative crops to tobacco
To ensure full-funding of FCTC implementation programme
There is an emerging powerful consensus among health advocates and public officials around the world that the tobacco industry should have no influence on public health policies. The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) enshrines this concept in international law.

Article 5.3 of the FCTC obligates Parties to "protect these [public health] policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry." Allowing tobacco corporations to influence tobacco control policy violates both the spirit and letter of the FCTC.

Unfortunately, Big Tobacco's interference in health policy continues to be one of the greatest threats to the treaty's implementation and enforcement. Philip Morris/Altria, British American Tobacco (BAT) and Japan Tobacco (JT) use their political influence to weaken, delay and defeat tobacco control legislation around the world. While the industry claims to have changed its ways, it continues to use sophisticated methods to undermine meaningful legislation.

Transnational tobacco corporations have supported and sustained a production system that has undermined human health and stifled human development. Therefore, in keeping with WHA (World Health Assembly) Resolution 54.18 and FCTC Article 5.3, these corporations SHOULD NOT be at the table discussing alternatives to tobacco production.

Acting as a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, ITGA (International Tobacco Growers Association) and its country chapters have spread misinformation and attempted to influence tobacco growers in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, India, South Africa , Zimbabwe, Malawi and Kenya as a strategy to slow down or block ratification and implementation of the FCTC. The Chief Executive of ITGA spoke on behalf of eight government and non-governmental organizations at the Public Hearing on Agricultural Diversification and Alternative Crops to Tobacco held in Brazil in February 2007, claiming to represent governments and farmers, while neglecting to reveal ITGA's connection to the tobacco transnationals.

Tobacco is the world's leading cause of preventable death—killing five million people per year. The generous commitment by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg marks a major change in the landscape for global tobacco control. Mayor Bloomberg's $125 million gift represents four times the 2006-2007 biennial budget of the World Health Organization's Tobacco-Free Initiative.

* Tobacco control advocates in priority countries should tap into this funding for their policy, media and monitoring initiatives. Both governments and NGOs can apply.

* All countries benefit when the cycle of dependence on tobacco is broken, and tobacco control policies have been shown to be good for the world's economies. The World Bank estimates that high-income countries spend up to 15% of their health care budget to treat tobacco-related illnesses. In 2002, China spent $3.5 billion on healthcare costs attributable to tobacco. If these costs were reduced just 20%, China could afford to hire more than half a million additional primary school teachers.

* Wealthy countries that have chartered, assisted and benefited from the international expansion of tobacco transnationals bear a responsibility to make transition away from tobacco-dependent economies viable. Political realities in the developing world also make assistance pragmatic, and could help speed up implementation of the treaty. Japan paid $87 million in 2006 to support WHO, more than any other nation. Yet Japan 's support of WHO represents only 10% of its share of Japan Tobacco's annual profits.

79% of the world's tobacco was sourced in developing nations in the late 1990s, up from 52% four decades earlier. However, countries that have most aggressively embraced tobacco production have not seen advances in their development. Only five of the 125 tobacco exporting nations derive more than 5% of their export income from tobacco. These five nations are concentrated at the bottom of UNDP's 2006 Human Development Index: Uganda (ranked 145 of 177 nations); Zimbabwe (which derives nearly a third of its export income from tobacco and ranks 151 of 177); United Republic of Tanzania (ranks 162 of 177); Malawi (which derives more than half of its export income from tobacco and ranks 166 of 177); and the Central African Republic (ranks 172 of 177). Far from being a path to prosperity, tobacco production paves the way to poverty.

Let's hope that these three concerns raised by the evidence-based report to be released by Corporate Accountability International ( http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/) at COP-II in Thailand later this month, shall get due attention.

*************
Bobby Ramakant
(Bobby Ramakant is a senior journalist and member of Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT). He can be contacted at: bobbyramakant @yahoo.com)

Condition of Crop Insurance in UP

Indepth op-ed on Condition of Crop Insurance in UP, Published in 'Voice of Lucknow' India's National news paper.

June 19, 2007

By- Amit dwivedi

Female Farmers and their health

Indepth op-ed female farmers and their health. Published in voice of Lucknow India's National news paper.

By- Amit Dwivedi

june 13 2007

Bollywood and Tobacco

Bollywood and Tobacco- Indepth op-ed published in Swatantra Bharat on the mark of World No Tobacco Day.

By - Amit Dwivedi

Tobacco Corporations are misleading

Indepth op-ed on World No Tobaco Day published in Kashi Varta on Tobacco Corporations are misleading.

June 1 2007

By- Amit Dwivedi

Female Farmers and their Health

Indepth op-ed article on Female Farmers and their Health, published in Swatantra Bharat.

June 6, 2007

By - Amit Dwivedi

Female Farmers and their Health

Indepth op-ed article on Female Farmers and their Health, published in Swatantra Bharat.



June 6 2007



By- Amit dwivedi

Women won't wait

Women won't wait
Susana Fried Open Democracy
6 June 2007
***********

"IT IS DANGEROUS TO SEPARATE THE FIGHT AGAINST HIV/AIDS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR WOMEN's HEALTH AND RIGHTS"It is dangerous to separate the fight against HIV/Aids and the struggle for women's health and rights, Susana Fried warns the G8. The German presidency of the G8 has made fighting HIV and Aids in Africa a priority for the Summit at Heiligendamm this week.

Leaders of the world's wealthiest countries have committed to supporting HIV/Aids prevention, treatment, and care, with the goal of coming "as close as possible" to universal access to treatment by 2010. But these lofty promises have not yet translated into dedicated funding to address a major and prevalent driver of the pandemic - the deadly intersection of HIV/Aids with violence against women and girls.

To state the obvious - violence against women and girls is a big contributor to death and illness among women, as well as to a host of human rights abuses. Moreover, gender-based violence, and particularly intimate partner violence, is a leading factor in the increasing "feminization" of the global Aids pandemic. Simultaneously, HIV/Aids is both a cause and a consequence of the gender-based violence, stigma and discrimination that women and girls face in their families and communities, in peace and in conflict, within and outside of intimate partnerships, and by state and non-state actors.

Yet agencies continue to treat HIV/Aids and violence against women and girls as separate issues - so that not only are efforts to address violence as a cause and consequence of HIV infection under-funded, but also the strategic imperative for integrating these efforts continues to suffer from a dangerous and dysfunctional split. Rather than comprehensively addressing this deadly intersection, national and global Aids responses continually fail to grapple with its implications.

The discrimination and abuse faced by same sex desiring and gender non-conforming individuals is captured by the term "heteronormativity". This term is used to encompass practices used to enforce "normal" (men as 'masculine' – read assertive and in control, and women as feminine – read passive and docile) heterosexuality. Cathy Cohen has defined heteronormativity as the practices and institutions "that legitimize and privilege heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships as fundamental and "natural" within society" (2005: 24). Her work emphasizes the importance of sexuality as implicated in broader structures of power, intersecting with and inseparable from race, gender, and class oppression.

See alsoThe roots of the problem--------Women and girls are at persistent risk of attack. According to the recent World Health Organization (WHO) multi-country study on violence against women, in 13 of their 15 study sites, one-third to three-quarters of women had been physically or sexually assaulted by an intimate partner. Violence, or the threat of it, not only causes physical and psychological harm to women and girls, it also limits their access to and participation in society because the fear of violence circumscribes their freedom of movement and of expression as well as their rights to privacy, security and health.

Women and girls encounter violence in their homes, communities, schools, workplaces, streets, markets, police stations and hospitals. And women who are HIV-positive face an additional danger: the stigma and threat of violence against people living with HIV and Aids.Women are two to four times more likely to contract HIV during unprotected sex than are men, because their physiology places them at a higher risk of injuries, because they are less able to control the circumstances and conditions of sexual intercourse, and because they are more likely than men to be at the receiving end of violent or coercive sexual intercourse.

Elements of the Aids testing, treatment and prevention machinery may also bring risk, such as the danger of violence connected to disclosure of HIV positive serostatus, coercive testing in the guise of voluntary counseling and testing (VCT), or the insidious treatment of women as vectors of disease, as in the case of prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes (PMTCT) that fail to treat pregnant HIV positive women as clients with rights, or only as, and nothing more than, child-bearers.The impacts of both HIV/Aids and violence against women is exacerbated by inadequate services and failure to protect sexual and reproductive health and rights; laws that are weak or discriminatory toward women living with HIV/Aids; social and community standards that validate the subordination of women and all others whose sexuality and gender identity do not conform to social standards of appropriate femininity and masculinity; and the intersecting forms of discrimination faced by women and girls because of their race, language, sexuality, ethnicity, and other similar factors.

This is why national and international commitment to universal access is crucial to reversing the HIV/Aids pandemic. But only in rare instances have states fully committed to grappling with women's human rights in relation to violence or HIV/Aids. Equally rarely have donors and other multilateral agencies created structures of accountability in service of respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of women and girls.

The Women Won't Wait campaign's March 2007 report looked at the policy, programming and funding patterns of the five largest public HIV/Aids donors and found that strong statements of policy concern 'evaporate' at the level of implementation. The level of funding for efforts to address gender-based violence remains small and often marginalized, while the integration of violence against women programming in the much larger pot of funding for HIV/Aids is inadequate and hard to trace.Gender-based violence continues to be treated as an "add-on" rather than as integral to work on HIV/Aids. Meanwhile, levels of funding for women's rights work are 'dismal', according to the Association for Women's Rights in Development. Violence against women and girls is rarely highlighted as a major driver and consequence of the disease, nor measured statistically to contribute to the evidence base.

It is nearly impossible to determine the precise amount of money contributed to work at the intersection because none of these donors publicly track their programming for and funding to violence eradication efforts within their HIV/Aids portfolio. All this despite the fact that - as WHO Director-General Margaret Chan has said -"what gets measured gets done".Show us the money--------Real commitments on the issues of gender-based violence against women and girls and the feminization of the AIDS epidemic from member nations of the G8 are long overdue.

G8 member nations must now take bold steps to demonstrate their commitment to respect, protect and fulfill women's rights - especially in the context of HIV/Aids - by promoting policies and negotiating positions that ensure adequate health care, education, legal services, and gender-sensitive and rights-based Aids and anti-violence interventions.Women's movements throughout the world have long fought for concrete action to promote and protect the human rights of all women - including the rights to be free from violence, coercion, stigma and discrimination, and the right to achieve the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health.

But this global standard is rarely translated into policy and practice. In the case of HIV/Aids, this results in a deadly failure in policy and an abrogation of governments' and donors' accountability. The waiting must end.

Online at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-

'We are likely to see growing water scarcity'

Climate change: 'We are likely to see growing water scarcity'

June 06, 2007

How will climate change transform India? What should Indians do in our everyday lives to lessen the impact of global warming?

Rediff.com's Nikhil Lakshman asked Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, what India and Indians need to do to counter the terrors of global warming. The third in a five-part series of interviews:

Part 1 of the Interview: 'Climate change reports have not been diluted'
A lot of young people seem to be absolutely aghast at the consequences of global warming. Would you outline for them the immediate and long-term implications of climate change?
Well, all these have been documented in the report itself and I would encourage people who have a concern to read the report in detail. You know the issues that we need to consider are the fact that today you have enough observed evidence to show that the climate is changing. We also have enough observed evidence to show that the bulk of this change is taking place because of human activity.

We can separate out very neatly those effects which are caused by nature -- and these could be sunspots, these could be volcanic activity -- and those activities which are human induced. So we can say now on the basis of scientific research and very sophisticated modeling activities exactly what the separation between these two drivers is. I think that's very, very clear.

We now find that there is more than a 90% chance that all the warming that has taken place in recent decades is the result of human action.

We have also made projections for the future, which show, for instance, there will be major precipitation changes. We also know that there will be major temperature increases and the impacts are not going to be uniform. There are some countries that are far more vulnerable than others, some regions where the impacts will be quite severe.

In the case of, say, the Indian subcontinent, we certainly are likely to see more extreme precipitation events. We are likely to see growing water scarcity. We know our glaciers are melting very rapidly. And that's likely to cause very serious problems at least for the northern part of the subcontinent.
Part 2 of the Interview: Climate Change: 'The science is first rate'
Will the Himalayan glaciers truly melt?

Look at the rate at which the glaciers are melting. There is enough documentary evidence, there's visible evidence. You don't even have to measure anything. You can see it taking place.
Sea-level rise is a reality and you know we need to be concerned about it. We have a large coastline. Agriculture is likely to be affected adversely.

So you know these are issues that are clearly going to have major implications for human activity across the globe and it is important for people, particularly those who are in the younger age group, to worry about some of these issues and start taking both adaptation measures as well as ensure that on a global basis, we can bring about effective mitigation of emissions of these gases.

So is this change universal?

Well, a good part of it really is because even if we had stabilised our emissions during the year 2000, climate change would continue for several decades. As a matter of fact, sea level rise, which really has the longest time scale, will continue for centuries. So we have to adapt while we may bring about action to mitigate emissions.

But you think we need to adapt to climate change as well as mitigate its consequences?
Absolutely. You need to do both. One or the other will not work. You need both.
What adaptation can we do in India?

Water management. We need to manage our water resources far more efficiently. Make sure that every drop of water, at least in economic activities, is used effectively.

I mean simple things like the kinds of toilets that we have over here, they are terribly inefficient in the use of water. Everywhere else in the world they have come up with designs that are far more efficient. With urbanisation and the demand for water growing in urban areas, these are things that are going to be critical.

In agriculture, we waste enormous amount of water, in industries we need to recycle water. There is a lot that can be done in the case of agriculture.

We need to come up with very location-specific solutions and how we may be able to counter the impact of climate change. Otherwise, agricultural yields will decline.
What about the energy scenario?

Well, there you really need global responses and global solutions. India is a very small part of the emissions problem. Even though our share is growing, it's still very, very small. I think action has to be taken first by the developed countries and I think that's absolutely critical. It is essential.

The European Union is trying to tackle climate change. The Bush administration, for long averse to taking any action, has finally stirred. What about India?
The government has to take the lead. We have to come up with a game plan, we have to come with a roadmap about what we need to do about climate change and, of course, predominantly it has to be an adaptation-based plan of action.

The number of cars that are on the roads is ridiculous. We have to think of a totally different plan of transport as opposed to what has been followed in the developed countries. It doesn't suit our conditions, locally or globally. So you know these are things that have to be thought through and you know we have to articulate them.

Has the government consulted you on what needs to done? The finance minister mentioned the constitution of an expert committee on climate change in his Budget speech. It has been a couple of months since and there has been no movement.

I haven't heard anything but you know on a regular basis we (The Energy Research Institute of which Dr Pachauri is the director-general) work very closely with the ministry of environment. We provide them regular inputs in the negotiations, in defining their own position as far as climate change is concerned. We have a good relationship in terms of providing advice and analytical inputs to the government.

online available at- http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/06inter.htm

'Climate change reports not diluted'

'Climate change reports not diluted'

June 04, 2007

Not too many Indians are aware that at the heart of the global debate on climate change is an Indian. Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme, to investigate global warming and its consequences for Earth.

This year's IPCC reports have startled world leaders out of denial mode. No longer, it appears, can climate change be dismissed by policy-makers as a monstrous crank theory conceived by a renegade scientific community.

At this week's G-8 summit in Germany, climate change and the threat it poses to the future of humanity will be one of the main subjects of discussion, treated almost on par with that other horrific challenge to the way we live, terrorism.

In an extensive interview to rediff.com's Nikhil Lakshman, Dr Pachauri -- who heads the The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi and is arguably India's leading enviromental scientist -- discusses the IPCC reports and what we ordinary folk need to do to preserve our planet from the dangers of global warming. A week-long series:

Are you satisfied that this year's IPCC reports have adequately conveyed the consequences and dangers of climate change?

I think they have because there has been an enormous amount of interest on the part of the media, and as a result I am sure our message and the essential findings of the reports have been conveyed widely across the world.

I feel generally satisfied but then this is only the start of a process which has to continue because let us face it, people have very short memories and right now, of course, the reports may create a bit of a stir. But over time people will forget about it and it will be business as usual. We have to think of some means by which one can keep reinforcing the message effectively.

Would you have been happier if the reports had been presented in the form they had been drafted by the scientists, because if you look at the American newspapers, for instance, there has been a lot of criticism about the way some countries watered down the conclusions?

No, I don't think they watered it down. The whole process of the IPCC is such that the summary for policy-makers is approved literally word by word by the governments. They (the government) have the immediate right to ask questions about every finding, every single piece of assessment that is contained in the reports.

The authors (of the reports) are present there and they have to answer those questions. They have to provide references, they have to provide a basis for why a particular conclusion has been arrived at. Often, to be quite honest, the kinds of suggestions that you get from the government representatives actually improves the quality of the reports.

So what we are really getting is a reality check on the part of the people who are involved in policies. And there are two benefits, one which I said you provide something in the report that is totally defensible and if it is not defensible then the authors decide to drop it. Secondly, I think what happens as a result is that you get a buy-in from the governments.

Once a government has approved a report then they necessarily have to accept ownership of it. Therefore, when it comes to any follow-up, no government can deny accepting the IPCC report. Because acceptance has been ensured through the process. So I don't think it (the IPCC reports) were watered down. Yes, there are always some modifications, and that is why we discuss these things for a period of four days or longer, which happened in this case.

Please describe to us the days leading to the presentation of the reports and the all-night discussions between the scientists and the policy-makers and your role in bringing about a satisfying conclusion.

Basically, you go through every sentence, line by line, you go through every word literally and as we go around the text, then people are free to discuss, debate, question what is there in the draft report. Then you sort of change it online if there is a need to do so. And since it is line by line you are talking about a 20, 21 page report.

Obviously, it takes all of four days and in this case it took longer because we worked right through the night. There were a few tricky issues and there you run into differences of opinion.

You then set up what is known as a contact group and that contact group meets outside sessions. And people who have very strong views about a particular issue participate in this contact group and we try to come up with any resolutions of any differences that arise.

How many countries were involved in this?
I think in Brussels, we had 114 countries.

And how many scientists?

There were the coordinating lead authors. I would say maybe 20, 25 which is the representative of the total number of scoentists who participated in the report.

And the policy-makers who took part in these discussions were also well informed individuals?
Oh yes! Because you know we go through a process of reviews of the draft. The drafts are sent out to governments and to experts for their review. And these are governments who have read the drafts, send in their comments and are totally familiar with the text. So essentially they are people who know what they are talking about.

So you wouldn't agree with the criticism that countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States actually diluted the report?

I wouldn't want to name any countries but you know there are always some countries are always a little more active than others. I don't think there has been any case, so I wouldn't use the word 'dilution'.

If you can't really find cogent reasons for defending what you have said, then clearly you just have to drop it. But what I'd like to say is that there has been no material change or alteration in the report as such. There might be some minor things that have changed but the basic thrust of the report has remained just as it was.
I read that some scientists are so displeased

with the process that they have vowed not to be involved in IPCC discussions again.

I said elsewhere -- it was reported also -- that after you have a 24-hour session literally, and at the end of it, somebody asks me, "Would you work for the IPCC again?" my instinct would be to say, "To hell with it! I am not interested." It is strenuous, it is a tough process and obviously people do get flustered, they lose their cool, they lose their tempers so if somebody walks out and says that they'll never work for the IPCC again, it really doesn't mean very much, it doesn't amount to anything.

In some sense you can say it's a lover's tiff, nothing more than that.
As chairman of the IPCC, what is your role?

The co-chairs of the working groups essentially run the meetings. I am there only to facilitate things if we run into any problems, if we run into any difficulties. I am there to understand what kind of roadblocks are coming in the way and how one might be able to remove them.

The overall IPCC meeting I chair myself. When the synthesis report is presented, which will be in November, I would chair that meeting so I will be at the receiving end.

With the working group report, it is the co-chairs of the working group who are the ones responsible for producing that report so they are the best ones to handle that session and defend everything as far as that report is concerned.

So, you are essentially a builder of consensus?

I am there to see that the process moves along established lines and if we run into any problems I'd like to see that we sort out those problems.

online available at- http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/04inter.htm

Tobacco Corporations

Especial Indepth op-ed on World No Tobacco Day in India's National News Paper, Voice of Lucknow on Tobacco Corporations.

By- Amit Dwivedi

June 1, 2007

Status of Farmers in India

Indepth op-ed Article on Status of Farmers in India in Voice OF Lucknow India's National News Paper.

By- Amit Dwivedi

4 June, 2007