#India – Chhattisgarh Diagnostics Privatisation Cancelled #goodnews #healthcare


The plan for privatisation of diagnostics services in Chhattisgarh has been cancelled. The RFP and tenders which had come in are no longer valid. This is a victory for  Jan Swasthya Abhiyan in Chattisgarh , The most heartening part of the struggle was the overwhelming support that this issue got from varied quarters.
indiahealth

Chhattisgarh diagnostic project on hold

SUVOJIT BAGCHI, The HINDU

State government says the policy requires a “fresh look”

The Chhattisgarh and Union governments have decided to halt the prestigious public-private partnership (PPP) project in diagnostic services in the State.

While Chhattisgarh’s Principal Health Secretary M.K. Raut said privatisation of diagnostic services was rolled back “for the time being,” the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) refused to partially fund the outsourcing of diagnostic services. Last February, the State government invited private players to “set up shops” in the health facilities sector. Defending the programme on the government’s behalf, the Health Department’s technical assistance body, the State Health Resource Centre (SHRC), said that “outsourcing of health services” to private laboratories would enhance efficiency and facilitate delivery of services.

Mr. Raut, however, denounced the flagship privatisation project, which required a “fresh look.”

“In [the] near future we will take a fresh look at the project and decide a course of action,” he told The Hindu . A “revised PPP model” would be in place “in the coming months.”

Chhattisgarh has 154 community health centres (CHC) and 756 primary health centres (PHC). The government, Mr. Raut said, may consider implementing the PPP model in “a few” remote CHC and PHCs. “It would depend on whether it is possible for us to reach those areas or not. The PPP in diagnostic services will not be implemented in the district hospitals or 5,211 sub health centres.”

The government had issued request for proposals (RFP) from private health service providers to set up diagnostic services at public hospitals and health facilities, paid for by the taxpayer. The proposal was severely criticised by health activists and Mr. Raut said the “RFP and the floated tenders are closed chapters now.”

Explaining what compelled the government to retract a project floated only few months back, he said the “gaps need more scrutiny.” “We have to figure out a mechanism to monitor private players in remote areas.”

The Health Department is also not sure how the private players can be regulated. “A diagnostic chain may use government premises to market its services to the outpatients. We need to ask, why the government should provide incentive to a private player to do business using public facility,” said Mr Raut. He clarified that the government would not dismantle its “existing infrastructure and retrench staffs” to create space for the private players.

Owing to inadequate and chaotic public health care services in India, patients turn to private facilities, which are mostly unregulated and where quality is a concern. With the Union Health Ministry’s growing focus on more privatisation in health care, it was clear decades back that the health budget would not get the necessary boost. Rather, in view of the growing flow of private finance in health sector a National Health Policy was formulated in 2002 and the PPP model was suggested.

Chhattisgarh, known for abysmal health care in remote regions, has followed that model as it could not fill the post of 965 radiographers and laboratory technicians over the last several years. To fill those vacancies and provide necessary equipment to the health centres, the State health budget needed an additional funding of at least Rs. 30 crores, which was not available. Besides, trained technicians are generally reluctant to work in remote areas. In this context, the government opted for the PPP model.

However, in a span of four months the policy changed and Mr. Raut said the government had a “new PPP policy” in place and the “diagnostic sector policy has to fall in line with the new one.”

The NRHM has also refused to partially fund the present model and asked the State to “revise the proposal based on the Government of India recommendation” and submit a supplementary programme implementation plan.


  • Private players were invited to “set up shops” in the health facilities sector last February.
  • The Chhattisgarh Government has put the scheme on hold pending a “fresh look”.

 

Out of shadow, PPPs at last come under RTI ambit


DoPT issues guidelines providing for suo motu disclosure of all information relating to PPPs under RTI Act

 
Prasanna Mohanty | New Delhi | April 17 2013, Governance Now
In a dramatic turnaround, the union government has now opened up public-private partnership (PPP) projects to public scrutiny.
The move comes in the wake of a fresh set of guidelines issued by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) on April 15. Till now any information sought through the RTI Act was stonewalled not only by the union government but also the state governments.
DoPT guidelines make it clear that “all information relating to PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain” henceforth suo motu, as per provisions of section 4 of the RTI Act.
This will gladden the hearts of all those fighting for accountability and transparency in the way PPP projects are being implemented in the country. Most big-ticket projects in the infrastructure sector, like roads, ports, airports, power, water supply, irrigation and telecommunication are being carried out under the PPP model. And for a while PPP projects are being seen as “public money for private profit”.
Social activists have been fighting for years to get information about PPP projects in vain. The fight that started in January 2011, with RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak approaching the CIC to get information about PPP projects, has succeeded in breaking down the wall.
DoPT’s guideline of April 15 says: “If public services are proposed to be provided through a public private partnership (PPP), all information relating to the PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain by the public authority entering into the PPP contract/concession agreement. This may include details of the special purpose vehicle (SPV), if any set up, detailed project reports, concession agreements, operation and maintenance manuals and other documents generated as part of the implementation of the PPP project.”
It adds: “Further, information about fees, tolls, or other kinds of revenue that may be collected under authorization from the government, information in respect of outputs and outcomes, process of selection of the private sector party may also be proactively disclosed. All payments made under the PPP project may also be disclosed in a periodic manner along with the purpose of making such payments”.
The stumbling block
In issuing guidelines for suo motu disclosures, the guideline admits that “the quality and quantity of proactive disclosure is not up to the desired level” and a part of the problem is that certain provisions of the RTI Act “have not been fully detailed”, and that in case of some “there is need for laying down detailed guidelines”.
Seen as the biggest stumbling block, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the planning commission, has publicly opposed every attempt to throw PPPs open to RTI by stating that it would inhibit private investment. He also contended that since PPPs are contracts with private entities they don’t come under the purview of the RTI Act.
The planning commission is the nodal body for PPPs.
Things took a turn for better when CIC wrote to the planning commission in January 2011 and sought modifications within PPP agreements to ensure public disclosure of details related to infrastructure projects being funded by the public exchequer. The DoPT supported CIC, but instead of legal changes suggested that the planning commission should draft the PPP agreement in a way that allows the government agency to disclose information on behalf of the private entity.
The planning commission opposed this and referred the matter to the law ministry.
In March 2011, Ahluwalia issued a statement clarifying his position. The statement said: “It is further clarified that concession agreements are executed by the respective ministries and not by the planning commission. So far as the planning commission is concerned, it has published several model concession agreements (MCAs) for PPP projects. These MCAs provide for full disclosure of the concession agreement, the maintenance manual, the maintenance programme and maintenance requirements in respect of each project.
“Where an MCA is followed, any person can obtain certified copies of these documents from the respective concessionaires.” (emphasis added)
But even after this statement, Ahluwalia publicly opposed throwing open PPPs to provisions of the RTI Act.
But DoPT set up a task force to look into the issue. In August 2011, the task force, which included civil society activists, favoured suo motu disclosure. The report was then referred to the PMO.
Apparently, after the PMO’s clearance, DoPT issued the guidelines on April 15.

 

Private health providers are NOT more efficient, accountable or medically effective #healthcare


POSTED BY ANNA MARRIOTT ON MAR 28TH, 2013 globalhealthcheck.com
 
 

In 2009 Oxfam published “Blind Optimism: Challenging the Myths about Private Health Care in Poor Countries,” to help redress what we saw as an international health discourse increasingly dominated by unchallenged private sector advocates.  Some of those same advocates accused Oxfam of being purposefully selective with the evidence.

The health team at Oxfam were therefore very pleased to see the recent publication of a thorough and balanced independent appraisal of peer-reviewed evidence on this topic in PloS Medicine. The study supports many (not all) of our conclusions about both the public and private sector.

In their research Basu et al. assess the comparative performance of the private and public sectors in health across a range of health system performance areas. They are clear that comparative evidence is often lacking and that distinctions between what is public and private are often difficult (for example when public facilities act more like commercial operators by charging fees). With these limitations acknowledged, the authors’ own conclusion states:

‘Studies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients’.   

Like Oxfam, the authors of this comparative study make special note of the World Bank as an influential advocate of public-private partnerships in health, but one whose claims are often unsubstantiated by their own data. The authors raise concerns about a conflict of interest for the World Bank that may undermine the validity of their research and analysis on this topic.

Some highlights from the paper are listed below (though I recommend reading this important article in full – especially for interesting country examples):

Access and responsiveness

  • A significant proportion of services in some developing countries are provided by the private sector but figures vary enormously by country and by income level. When informal or unlicensed providers are excluded, the public sector provided the majority of care in 19 out of 22 low- and middle-income countries for which World Bank data is available.  
  • Studies that measured utilization by income levels tended to find the private sector predominately serves the more affluent. In Colombo, Sri Lanka, where a universal public health service exists, the private sector provided 72% of childhood immunisations for the wealthiest, but only 3% for the poorest.
  • Waiting times are consistently reported to be shorter in private facilities and a number of studies found better hospitality, cleanliness and courtesy and availability of staff in the private sector.

Quality

  • Available studies find diagnostic accuracy, adherence to medical management standards and prescription practices are worse in the private sector.
  • Prescribing subtherapeutic doses, failure to provide oral rehydration salts, and prescribing of unnecessary antibiotics were more likely in the private sector, although there were exceptions.
  • Higher rates of potentially unnecessary procedures, particularly C-sections, were reported at private facilities. In South Africa for example, 62% of women delivering in the private sector had C-sections, compared with 18% in the public sector.
  • Two country studies found a lack of drug availability and service provision at public facilities, while surveys of patients’ perceptions on care quality in the public and private sector provided mixed results.

Patient outcomes

  • Public sector provision was associated with higher rates of treatment success for tuberculosis and HIV as well as vaccination. In South Korea for example, TB treatment success rates were 52% in private and 80% in public clinics. Similar figures were found for HIV treatment in Botswana.

Accountability, transparency and regulation

  • While national statistics collected from public sector clinics vary considerably in quality, private healthcare systems tended to lack published data on outcomes altogether. Public-private partnerships also lacked data.
  • Several reports observed significant public spending being used to regulate the private sector in order to improve patient care quality, and with limited effectiveness.

Fairness and equity

  • Financial barriers to care exist in the public and private sector.
  • Private sector services tend to cater for higher income groups with studies showing exclusion and discrimination against poorer patients and women.
  • Several studies suggested the process of privatizing existing public services increased inequalities in the distribution of services.
  • Private contracting and social franchises showed potential for reaching impoverished groups, though findings are tentative because comparisons to the public sector are unavailable.

Efficiency

  • Contrary to prevailing assumptions, the private sector appeared to have lower efficiency than the public sector, resulting from higher drug costs, perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment, greater risks of complications, and weak regulation.
  • The evidence is mixed (and often weak) on the cost of contracting to private providers – increasing expenditure in some countries whilst reducing it in others.

Other important findings

  • Rather than adding resources, several studies reported that growth of the private healthcare sector, whether independently or via public-private partnerships, directly reduced public funds and staff available for public provision.

And on the World Bank….

  • The World Bank has made strong claims that investing in public-private partnerships will improve efficiency and effectiveness in the health sector, yet several of its publications revealed that these assertions were either unsupported by data or the data was not provided in sufficient detail to pass minimal inclusion criteria for this review’.
  • Despite the lack of data about private sector performance, recent initiatives by the World Bank’s International Finance Committee (IFC) are underwriting the expansion of private sector services among low- and middle-income countries. For example in sub-Saharan Africa, the IFC has created a private equity fund to make 30 long-term investments in private health companies. These conflicts of interest pose a potential threat to the validity of World Bank-sponsored studies and raise the need for independent scrutiny.

The evidence from this study shows that while public health systems are often weak and under-resourced they still deliver better quality of care, more equitably and with greater efficiency than the private sector.  The study highlights the tendencies of private providers to serve higher socio-economic groups, have higher risk of low-quality care, create perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment, and suffer from weak regulation. It also suggests there are a number of ways public health systems can do better.  They must be more responsive to patients and more accountable to citizens, improve systems for distributing essential inputs like medicines, and address financial barriers to accessing care (such as formal and informal fees).

These are legitimate challenges that deserve thoughtful attention and action, but they should not be used as evidence of the superiority of private sector approaches. Instead, the policy response to these findings should be very clear: far more effort and resources must be mobilized to maximize the clear advantages of public health systems, rather than further starving them of the resources and support they need to deliver equitable and quality health care for all.

 

Setback to Chhattisgarh health care services


SUVOJIT BAGCHI, The Hindu, March 30, 2013

Private hospitals refuse treatment under government insurance schemes

The Chhattisgarh government has had to accept yet another setback while trying desperately to rope in private players to strengthen public health care services.

At least 20 major private hospitals have refused to provide treatment under the Chief Minister’s health insurance scheme — Mukhyamantri Swasthya Bima Yojana (MSBY). Reportedly, they are also not following guidelines to provide treatment under the national health insurance scheme, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), and are charging money from the patients.

Hospital owners claimed that the insured amount paid for treatment of the patients below poverty line (BPL) under RSBY is “very low.” In addition, introduction of a scheme for the people above poverty line (APL) under MSBY will “seriously damage business and thus will affect services.”

State health officials, hospital management and representatives of insurance companies and Third Party Administrators (TPA) held a meeting on Thursday. According to local news reports, Director, Health Services, Dr. Kamalpreet Singh, said rates had already been “upwardly revised” under RSBY and MSBY after consultation with private hospitals.

Under the new list, 272 categories of treatment, commonly called ‘packages,’ were increased by four to 200 per cent. Another 22 packages had been added and the new list will be applicable from April 1. However, major private players are not happy with the revised rate list and refused to implement the insurance schemes in their hospitals. The move angered the government and the health department has decided to de-panel the hospitals, the sources said.

Earlier this month, the government faced a setback while trying to introduce the policy of Public Private Partnership (PPP) in public health facilities. No private diagnostic centre had come forward to set up radiology and laboratory facilities in the two most underdeveloped divisions with high percentage of rural population — Bastar in south and Surguja in north Chhattisgarh following governments directives.

The Chhattisgarh Government’s Directorate of Health Services had to seek fresh bids for newly aligned divisions. According to the sources, while a good number of applications were filed for affluent divisions such as Raipur and Bilaspur, not receiving a single application for the poorer divisions illustrate the private players’ reluctance to acknowledge health care as a social service. However, the proponents of Chhattisgarh’s public-private venture in health care were optimistic about its future, even after these recent rounds of setbacks.

 


  • Major private players are not happy with the revised rate list
  • Government to “de-panel” hospitals that refuse to cooperate

 

#Mumbai- Protest against Corporatization of Municipal Schools @March 16


india calcutta bookstore

 

Corporatization of Municipal Schools – Disaster for Students, Parents and Teachers!

 

Cancel the decision of handing over education of 4 lakh municipal students

 

to Private organizations, NGOs and Companies!

 

Join the Protest on 16th March 2013!

 

In the guise of improving quality, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has taken a decision on 23 January 2013, to hand over all of it’s 1174 schools to private organizations and companies under a ‘Public Private Partnership’ scheme of ‘School Adoption’.

 

The Mumbai Municipal Act and the constitution mandate that the responsibility of Primary education lies with the Municipal Corporation. However the BMC is washing its hands away from the responsibility of primary education. This is only a beginning of privatization of education and soon all other Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Zilha Parishads will abandon their responsibility for education.

 

The state and central governments provide funds to the Municipal Corporation for education, the BMC levies additional Education Cess to meet the expenses for education. However even the basic facilities are not provided in BMC schools; enough number of teachers and supporting staff are also not appointed; teachers are burdened with non-academic work. As a result of this the schools, which once nurtured good students and a promised a bright future for the Mumbai city, are dying now.

 

The builders and profiteering private institutions will capture the lands of BMC schools, similar to what happened with the Cotton mills in 1982.

 

Due to this policy of ‘school adoption’ the NGOs run by Indian and Foreign Multinationals will decide what our children should study, how they should study and who should teach them.

 

Institutions like IITs and Central schools have a good quality and they have been established by the Government itself. So if the BMC/government decides, they can improve the condition of BMC schools also. Instead of that they are degrading the schools further.

 

Today Mumbai Municipal Corporation provides education in 8 Indian Languages to 4 lakh students through 11000 teachers. NGOs provide substandard education of English by promising English medium education. This type of education is stunting the growth of language skills and independent thinking among students.  This is an attack on the future of our country, on the Dalits, Working class and Minorities.

 

If we do not get up today, tomorrow it may be too late. No NGO or private organization running for profit can provide free, compulsory and good quality education to all the children. That can be done only by a publicly funded, pro-people education system. So today the people of Maharashtra need to wake up and wage a struggle to strike down this decision. The only alternative to today’s unequal, discriminatory education system is a K.G. to P.G. publicly funded Common School System based on Neighbourhood schools. So do join us in the demonstrations on 16th of March 2013, at 12:30 pm at Azad Maidan!

 

Demands

 

  • Cancel the privatization of BMC schools
  • BMC must provide Free, Compulsory and Equal quality education to all children upto 12th standard.

 

Yours,

 

All participating organizations, parties in Mumbai

 

Aapli Mumbai, AISA, Indian Social Movement, India Against Corruption, AIRSO, AISF, Kokanastha Dalit Mahila Sanghatana, Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan, Janata Dal (Secular), Jaitapur Anuprakalp Virodhi Samitee, TDF, Parivartan Shikshan Sanstha, Phule Ambedkar Rashtriya Vidyarthi Sanghatana, Bhareep Bahujan Mahasangh, Communist Party of India, Maharashtra Sarva Shramik Sangh, Maagasavargeey Vidyarthi-Paalak Adhikar Sangharsha Samitee, Mumbai Municipal Kamgaar Sangh, Mumbai Municipal Kaamgar Karmacharee Purogamee Union, Mumbai Electric Employees Union, Muktiyaan Loksanskrutik Sanghatanaa, Yusuf Meherally Center, Yuva Biradaree, Replublican Panther, Rashtra Seva Dal, Vidyarthee Bharatee, Shikshan Vyaapaareekaran Virodhi Manch, Shikshan Bajareekaran Virodhi Manch, Samaan Shikshan Mulabhoot Adhikar Samitee(Mumbai), Samaan Shikshan Mulabhoot Adhikaar Samitee(Bhivandi), CPI(ML, Liberation), CPI(ML, Red Flag), Yuva Bharat, Samaajvadee Janparishad, Sant Rohidas Vichar Manch

 

Mumbai Shikshan Kampanikaran Virodhi Abhiyaan

 

With

 

All India Forum for Right to Education

 

Yusuf Meherali Center, D-15, Ganesh Prasad, Naushir Bharucha Marg, Grant Road(W), Mumbai 400007. Phone: 23870097 Email: yusufmeherally@gmail.com

 

 

 

#India- Pay for surgeries, costly treatment with EMIs soon #healthcare


Finance

Mar 4, 2013, TNN[ Rupali Mukherjee ]

Globally, patient financing companies like Springstone and Medicard bear the cost of a patient’s treatment including surgeries, procedures and even pharma prescriptions, ranging from $2,000 to $40,000.
MUMBAI: Soon you will be able to finance the purchase of prescription medication. With healthcare costs going through the roof and exorbitantly-priced medicines making treatment inaccessible for many, companies are trying to reach out to patients and provide options of convenient monthly payments.

These companies include patient financing start-ups which will provide options so patients don’t delay expensive treatments and have access to medication through a customised repayment plan — an affordable alternative to personal loans and credit cards.

Globally, patient financing companies like Springstone and Medicard bear the cost of a patient’s treatment including surgeries, procedures and even pharma prescriptions, ranging from $2,000 to $40,000. Healthcare financing start-up Mya Health Credit will soon offer loans to patients for financing prescriptions.

Mya Health Credit’s founder Manish Menda says, “we are in talks with domestic pharma companies and will soon be rolling out the financing of pharma prescriptions over Rs 75,000 for a tenure of 12, 18 or 24 months. We will also offer financing of medical devices—used by the consumer, like hearing aids or pacemakers as their costs add up to over a lakh or so.”

Though the company is still working out the finer details, it has tied-up with Tata Finance which will provide ‘loans’ for purchasing medicines after appropriate verification checks. Hitesh Gajaria, partner KPMG, said: “This is a way of deepening the market and increasing accessibility by offering customised loans for healthcare. Patient financing is a niche area and India is a huge unserved market.”

The pay-as-you-go approach is a great model for countries like India where there is no reimbursement system and expenditure on health is largely out-of-pocket, industry experts say. In US, pharma expenses are about 8-15% of total healthcare cost while in India it may go as high as 60% in therapies. Pharma company Biogen Idec offers two critical medicines, meant for multiple sclerosis patients at half the cost, and is exploring finance options through a public-private partnership where it can part-finance the treatment, says the company’s MD Sameer Savkur.

#Mumbai- SevenHills wants to treat ‘Bachchans’, not poor: BMC #patientrights


Rosy Sequeira TNN

Mumbai:The BMC on Tuesday told the Bombay high court that SevenHills Healthcare Private Limited (SHHPL) wants to treat “only the Bachchans” and not poor and needy at its super-specialty hospital in Marol. Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan had given birth to a baby girl at the hospital.

BMC advocates Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and Shardul Singh said this while opposing a fresh plea by SHHPL for an NOC to change its bank mortgage. In September 2011, SHHPL had challenged BMC notices to vacate the land allotted to it to run the super-specialty hospital in a public-private partnership.
SHHPL’s counsel Venkatesh Dhond urged the HC for urgent relief in shifting the mortgage to other banks, saying mounting arrears had nearly made the hospital a non-performing asset.
The division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and K K Tated pointed out that following the November 2011 HC order, the BMC has granted an NOC. To which Dhond replied the NOC is more of an objection that has dissuaded bankers from granting funds. The judges said if SHHPL is not happy with the NOC, it should take out appropriate proceedings and not file a fresh plea claiming the same relief.
Dhond urged the HC to direct the BMC to grant an occupation certificate for the hospital. Kumbhakoni said there are conditions in the intimation of disapproval that SHHPL has to first comply with. The matter will be heard after three weeks.

Privatisation of radiological services opposed


Ananya Banerjee : Mumbai, Mon Mar 19 2012,

The decision of the state government to privatise radiology services in 14 government medical colleges and all district hospitals in the state has not gone down well with the healthcare professionals, trade unions and NGOs.

At a state-level convention held on Saturday, members of these organisations have unanimously opposed the move expressing their fear of further privatisation of the public health sector.

“Following the Seven-Hills debacle, the state government should have known better than to involve the private sector into the public domain. What the government is calling a Public Private Partnership (PPP) is actually a back door entry for private organisations. There is no need for PPP if the existing public health system can be strengthened,” said activist Kamyani Bali Mahabal.

While announcing the move to privatise the radiology services a few months ago, additional chief secretary Jayant Kumar Banthia had said that government hospitals had been unable to run efficiently due to the lack of competent staff. Paucity of funds was also stated as one of the reasons for the privatisation.

“There are hospitals in the public sector like Bhabha Hospital in Mumbai and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi which are functioning smoothly. Once the staff is sufficiently trained, better treatment can be provided. As far as funds go, if the state government puts forth a planned proposal to the Centre seeking funds for the health care, then there will be no need to resort to privatisation,” said Dr Anant Phadke, member of the Jan Aarogya Abhiyan.

A petition having the signatures of 171 people from across Maharashtra has been sent to Vijay Kumar Gavit, Maharashtra health and education minister, seeking a withdrawal of the proposal.

However, there are those working within the public sector who feel that privatisation will help in boosting the quality of treatment in public hospitals.

“ Most of the public hospitals are understaffed. Technicians have to be trained separately to operate MRI and CT scan machines. If trained personnel are deployed to operate the machines, it will lead to better utilisation of manpower,” said a senior doctor from JJ Hospital.

“Machines worth crores have been sold off as scrap as no one knows how to use them. If trained people provide services, the quality of treatment will improve,” another doctor from JJ Hospital said.

Signature campaign against draft Indian National Water Policy 2012


English: child enjoying clean and safe drinkin...

Image via Wikipedia

Join People’s Campaign for Right to Water-Karnataka in opposing Draft National Water Policy 2012 prepared by Ministry of Water Resources and demand its immediate withdrawal.
Water is a life and precious resource, which should be carefully conserved and available for use by all living beings for now and in future. We oppose the introduction of the very concept of water as an economic good, we will strongly oppose the anti-constitutional approach of providing water only to those who can afford to pay for it. Water cannot be commodified and should not be traded.

It is the responsibility of the Government to provide clean and safe drinking water to rural and urban areas. Any attempts to privatise in the guise of public-private partnership, outsourcing of operations and management, or other functions amounts to abdication of this responsibility. In carrying out this responsibility the Government should ensure the Right to Water to every citizen. This right is linked with the Right to Food (security). Therefore such a right cannot be an outcome of tradable, competitive economic water rights. The policy should outline various measures to implement the Right to Water, with adequate funding and technology as required. This must lead to improved public health and human well-being.

The Peoples Campaign for Right to Water – Karnataka (PCRTW-K)

Demands :

1. The Government has a responsibility to provide clean and safe drinking water.

2. Public-private partnership, outsourcing of operations and management amounts to abdication of responsibility.

3. The Government must commit to time bound assured universal coverage with implementation through democratic elected local Governments in urban (ULG’s) and Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRI’s) in rural areas.

4. The Government is to work towards implementing the universal human right to water and sanitation including introduction of legal measures as required.

5. Policy and implementation to ensure that none can be denied water based on lack of affordability.

6. Water is not a commodity and cannot be traded or treated as economic good.

We invite you to join us in this campaign by signing the e-petition below as soon as possible and also encourage your friends to do so.The signatures and petition will be submitted to the Ministry of Water Resources and the Planning Commission, GoI.

Please sign petition here

 

Archives

Kractivism-Gonaimate Videos

Protest to Arrest

Faking Democracy- Free Irom Sharmila Now

Faking Democracy- Repression Anti- Nuke activists

JAPA- MUSICAL ACTIVISM

Kamayaninumerouno – Youtube Channel

UID-UNIQUE ?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,234 other followers

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 1,760,271 hits

Archives

September 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
%d bloggers like this: