Restoration of traditional water tanks has rejuvenated life in parched areas and helped revive agriculture
It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. But the seemingly dead calmness that greets you in Vellinipatti, a village in Madurai district, belies the intense struggle of the local people for water. For years the 1,500 people of this village, who primarily depend on agriculture for livelihood, had to fight with each other over every drop of water available. Over 30 years of encroachments had turned their 1000-year-old, 27-acre water tank into a ruin and choked water supply. But today all that has changed. Their tank is overflowing with water.
Similarly there are hundreds of such tanks in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Puducherri that have been renovated through an initiative by NGO Dhan Foundation. “We have realised that reviving surface water through community efforts is probably the only way to take the pressure off from groundwater and restore livelihoods,” says Dhan’s executive director M.P. Vasimalai. Water tanks, one of the oldest man-made ecosystems, have irrigated about 6.5 million hectares of land since the early 1950s. But over the decades, their numbers had declined.
The road to their revival was meticulously planned. For instance, the organisation conducted a detailed survey of the water table with the help of local people, civil, hydraulic and irrigation engineers and then devised a restoration strategy. With inputs from government agencies and local communities, the tanks were renovated within a timespan of two-three months. The cost of the whole renovation project—Rs 20 lakh—was shared between the Government, the funding agency as well as the village community.
“As a social system, tanks have served and benefitted various groups of the village community, such as farmers, fishermen and especially the women who had to trudge long distances to fetch water,” says A. Gurunathan, a programme leader of the project. The support that the local people are giving to this initiative is also commendable. Earlier, encroachments in Athigarikulam tank in Andipatti of the Theni district had forced farmers to migrate to other villages due to the non-availability of water for irrigation. But with the initiative of the local people and with the assistance of the district collector, the tank was revived.
Courts too have stepped in periodically, giving a muchneeded fillip to these community initiatives. “The efforts have not just triggered a water movement, but given back the management of water in the hands of the community, as has been the case for centuries,” adds Vasimalai.
(India Today, May 7, 2007)
Showing posts with label WATER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WATER. Show all posts
Can I have my cola now?
Here's a classroom on the truth behind the Coke-Pepsi-pesticide controversy in India
By S S Jeevan
Is my soft drink free from pesticides?
No. Both studies -- by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) as well as the government's Centre Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore -- found pesticide residue in all samples tested. The difference was only in the levels.
What's this thing about pesticides above/below EEC standards?
There are no standards to measure pesticide residue in India for soft drinks. So CSE used the European Economic Community (EEC) norms, and found that all 12 samples had higher levels. CFTRI found pesticide residue above EEC limit in nine samples and below that limit in three samples. So that settles it, your cola has some amount of pesticide.
Why just EEC norms, why not US norms?
Only the European Union has norms that have quantified pesticide residue levels. Even the Indian Government studies have used the same standards.
Will pesticide contaminated colas affect my health in any way?
Pesticide consumption, even in lower levels, cause long-term harm. That's what scientists worldwide say. You'll never know how and when they will trigger a cancer or disrupt your immunity and so on. There are many studies to show how pesticide exposure causes diseases. But till now there's none to link pesticides in soft drinks to diseases.
Why did CSE single out Coke and Pepsi in their campaign? Why not target other soft drink companies?
Believe it or not, almost the entire soft drink market in India is monopolised by these two companies.
Can I sue a company in India which sells me a contaminated product?
No. There are no norms, no binding laws. The industry has not flouted any rules. The rules just do not exist. That's why the cola companies have been given a "clean chit" by the Health minister Sushma Swaraj.
But what about food products that are contaminated with pesticides? Why target only MNC cola companies?
CSE director Sunita Narain calls it a "shock therapy". It is not surprising that today people have started talking about groundwater contamination only because of the soft drink expose.
Then why accuse cola companies when India's groundwater quality is so pathetic?
Years of neglect by the government to the indiscriminate use of pesticides has led to the problem. The other issue is that of corporate responsibility. Cola companies cannot pass the buck saying that the raw water is bad. They need to invest in cleaner technologies to make their products safer. Product stewardship is a concept Indian companies need to get familiar with.
Did the cola companies' campaign strategy to counter the CSE study boomerang?
To a large extent yes. Especially when one saw the cola chiefs sipping tea (not their colas) on television on August 5 (when CSE released its findings) and claiming that their products were safe. Then by questioning the credibility of the CSE study, the cola majors seemed to have lost the trust of some of their consumers. No wonder, soft drinks sales have dipped since then. Then Pepsi went a step ahead. It selectively quoted Sushma Swaraj's speech in Parliament in its huge advertisements to say that their products were safe. Never mind that it had to withdraw the advertisement and issue an apology. If their products do not contain pesticides, why haven't the companies sued CSE till now?
Did the government look like it was favouring the cola companies in the way it responded to the crisis?
The government is under tremendous pressure -- both from the corporate world and from civil society groups. Sushma Swaraj's reply in Parliament reflected only a part of what the government's report had noted. The CFTRI report said that CSE's report and its own cannot be compared as the samples were different. That was not revealed to the media. Also that the pesticide, Lindane, was found in all samples tested at CFTRI. Now, it looks like the government is moving in the right direction. It has notified norms for soft drinks, which prescribe stringent pesticide residue limits.
What's the purpose of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC)?
The JPC doesn't have the credibility to sit in judgement over a purely scientific issue. More so when the commercial interests of corporate houses are involved. Are you as a consumer going to trust a scientist or a parliamentarian to tell you whether the soft drink you consume is safe or not? The setting up of a JPC is also a trusted strategy to let matters cool down. Today, no one in the government will talk to you about the controversy. "I will not reply to such questions," says Swaraj. "The matter is in front of the JPC and I respect its sanctity."
Can stringent norms check pesticide contamination in soft drinks?
Having some norms is better than having no norms. Legal norms help instill a sense of fear in companies. It also enables ordinary citizens to fight back. The important thing now is that of enforcement.
Will strengthening of norms solely benefit the MNCs, as only they have the financial muscle to invest in cleaner technologies. Aren't the smaller players (read Indian) going to suffer?
As we've said earlier, most of the cola market is dominated by MNCs. Strengthening of norms can also help Indian companies compete in the global market, especially as we enter the WTO regime. The basic issue is that of health, not who's going to make more money.
(New Indian Express, September 7, 2003)
By S S Jeevan
Is my soft drink free from pesticides?
No. Both studies -- by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) as well as the government's Centre Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore -- found pesticide residue in all samples tested. The difference was only in the levels.
What's this thing about pesticides above/below EEC standards?
There are no standards to measure pesticide residue in India for soft drinks. So CSE used the European Economic Community (EEC) norms, and found that all 12 samples had higher levels. CFTRI found pesticide residue above EEC limit in nine samples and below that limit in three samples. So that settles it, your cola has some amount of pesticide.
Why just EEC norms, why not US norms?
Only the European Union has norms that have quantified pesticide residue levels. Even the Indian Government studies have used the same standards.
Will pesticide contaminated colas affect my health in any way?
Pesticide consumption, even in lower levels, cause long-term harm. That's what scientists worldwide say. You'll never know how and when they will trigger a cancer or disrupt your immunity and so on. There are many studies to show how pesticide exposure causes diseases. But till now there's none to link pesticides in soft drinks to diseases.
Why did CSE single out Coke and Pepsi in their campaign? Why not target other soft drink companies?
Believe it or not, almost the entire soft drink market in India is monopolised by these two companies.
Can I sue a company in India which sells me a contaminated product?
No. There are no norms, no binding laws. The industry has not flouted any rules. The rules just do not exist. That's why the cola companies have been given a "clean chit" by the Health minister Sushma Swaraj.
But what about food products that are contaminated with pesticides? Why target only MNC cola companies?
CSE director Sunita Narain calls it a "shock therapy". It is not surprising that today people have started talking about groundwater contamination only because of the soft drink expose.
Then why accuse cola companies when India's groundwater quality is so pathetic?
Years of neglect by the government to the indiscriminate use of pesticides has led to the problem. The other issue is that of corporate responsibility. Cola companies cannot pass the buck saying that the raw water is bad. They need to invest in cleaner technologies to make their products safer. Product stewardship is a concept Indian companies need to get familiar with.
Did the cola companies' campaign strategy to counter the CSE study boomerang?
To a large extent yes. Especially when one saw the cola chiefs sipping tea (not their colas) on television on August 5 (when CSE released its findings) and claiming that their products were safe. Then by questioning the credibility of the CSE study, the cola majors seemed to have lost the trust of some of their consumers. No wonder, soft drinks sales have dipped since then. Then Pepsi went a step ahead. It selectively quoted Sushma Swaraj's speech in Parliament in its huge advertisements to say that their products were safe. Never mind that it had to withdraw the advertisement and issue an apology. If their products do not contain pesticides, why haven't the companies sued CSE till now?
Did the government look like it was favouring the cola companies in the way it responded to the crisis?
The government is under tremendous pressure -- both from the corporate world and from civil society groups. Sushma Swaraj's reply in Parliament reflected only a part of what the government's report had noted. The CFTRI report said that CSE's report and its own cannot be compared as the samples were different. That was not revealed to the media. Also that the pesticide, Lindane, was found in all samples tested at CFTRI. Now, it looks like the government is moving in the right direction. It has notified norms for soft drinks, which prescribe stringent pesticide residue limits.
What's the purpose of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC)?
The JPC doesn't have the credibility to sit in judgement over a purely scientific issue. More so when the commercial interests of corporate houses are involved. Are you as a consumer going to trust a scientist or a parliamentarian to tell you whether the soft drink you consume is safe or not? The setting up of a JPC is also a trusted strategy to let matters cool down. Today, no one in the government will talk to you about the controversy. "I will not reply to such questions," says Swaraj. "The matter is in front of the JPC and I respect its sanctity."
Can stringent norms check pesticide contamination in soft drinks?
Having some norms is better than having no norms. Legal norms help instill a sense of fear in companies. It also enables ordinary citizens to fight back. The important thing now is that of enforcement.
Will strengthening of norms solely benefit the MNCs, as only they have the financial muscle to invest in cleaner technologies. Aren't the smaller players (read Indian) going to suffer?
As we've said earlier, most of the cola market is dominated by MNCs. Strengthening of norms can also help Indian companies compete in the global market, especially as we enter the WTO regime. The basic issue is that of health, not who's going to make more money.
(New Indian Express, September 7, 2003)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)