Tupac: The COINTELPRO CONNECTION ?

uhuru and Power to the People,

Brothas and Sistas, I bring this information to you in the name of liberation for all Africans. Analyze and get it around, we must begin to utilize new startegies if we are to liberate our continent and restore balance. Every day our resources are raped from the continent and everyday we delay the excuse will grow, thatr it is not our land. The reality is we must reclaim Africa now, and it begins in America. let us learn from the strategies employed by others and move forward. let us use our national names as identities and add that our culture is Black, black is beautiful.

The following excerpt is from uhuru360 magazine on sale now @ your local afrocentric bookstore, if its not there ask them to get it there, contact us.

This article is submitted by field agent. johnny quest.Brooklyn

Although COINTELPRO formally ended in 1971, at least one ex-FBI agent stated that the FBI informally continued the same
program by framing it in different terms.11

Particular evidence of COINTELPRO’s informal continuance has come out in classaction suits in New York City.

In a landmark case challenging COINTELPRO activities in New York City, “[Police] Commissioner Murphy conceded that the Police Department was engaged in the vast bulk of activities described in [the class action] complaint, including surreptitious
surveillance and undercover infiltration of the political activities of individuals and groups.”12 The class action suit,brought by a coalition of activists, also exposed the activities of “physical and verbal coercion...provocation of violence, and recruitment to act as police informers,” against New Yorkers involved in lawful political and social activities.13 One Panther
historian noted that “at least five BOSS [Bureau of Special Services] agents were planted inside the Panther Party almost from its inception, beginning at once to worm their way into positions of power.”1

The settlement of this case led to a court order in 1985 stipulating specific “Guidelines” for future police activity.15 Police admitted there was a special unit called “The Black Desk” to monitor Black New Yorkers. BOSS illegal police surveillance on the Black Liberation Movement in the 1980s, which included Tupac Shakur’s lawyer, Michael Warren, was found to have
violated the Guidelines in a 1989 opinion.16 Statewide, the JTTF, an FBI-police amalgam, had hunted down Mutulu Shakur, among other “terrorists,” and harassed their supporters.17
The question remains whether the COINTELPRO activities carried out by BOSS under the auspices of The Black Desk, and JTTF, were continued under a different police unit name in the 1990s. Often described as the special elite police unit with an almost completely white racial make-up, New York City’s select Street Crime Unit would be the most likely candidate.18
New evidence detailed below suggests that COINTELPRO tactics against Blacks in particular may have been behind the first near-fatal shooting of Shakur in New York in 1994.
Fame and Politics By the end of the Reagan/Bush era, Shakur’s auspicious musical debut, including lyrics discussing his Black Panther family, coupled with leading movie roles, threatened to bring the Panthers back into vogue.

Thus it is no coincidence that Shakur attracted police attention in direct proportion to his fame and success. In line with Shakur’s quote, “I never had a record until I made a record,” shortly after his successful solo debut, Oakland police ticketed him for jaywalking, then arrested and beat him in custody.19 Shakur’s first record, 2Pacalypse Now, railed against the FBI, the CIA, and President Bush. In 1992, a year after that album’s release, Vice President Dan Quayle, and later Senator Bob Dole, singled him out as responsible for police deaths.

With the FBI watching Shakur since he was a teen, and his leadership in the New Afrikan Panthers, a group dedicated to replicating the Black Panthers,20 police involvement in his life deserves more scrutiny.

While Shakur’s lyrics often dramatized inner-city life, including what some might view as negative images, glorifying gang life and denigrating women, they also included many positive political messages: ideas about Malcolm X and various Black Panthers.21 As a youth, Shakur performed benefits for Black Panther prisoners. By nineteen, he sang with the Grammy nominated band Digital Underground. Besides his stint as a Panther Chairman and his Underground Railroad/Thug Life Movement, Shakur participated in a Stop the Violence program, helped with a home for at-risk youth, sponsored a “CelebrityYouth League,” joined Central American solidarity benefits, and regularly spoke at rallies for voter registration and progressiveactivist groups.

Thanks Howard Stern

As many viewers are aware Howard Stern's logo is the powerful Black fist that represents so many things to so many people within the struggle and movement of Blacks as awhole for several decades, if not centuries.

We know that some of the earliest Black magazines publsihed her in America, had fist on the cover, I believe specifically a magazine called "The Vanguard", circa 1910-22, somewhere around then.

Several ministers loyal to the people attempted to prevent Howard from using the symbol.
http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=3354
What many people from outside of the midwest dont realize is that the press didnt really pay attention to the comments frmo activists until the priest got involved (see story and check local research)

However I am appreciative to teh degenerate for abusing the icon, because it caused those that dont wear it on their sleeve to say," HEY WHAT the HELL..." and has helped to cause more and more Blacks to want to display their culture, or claim it as some might say.

thanx howie, as always the little things you do, brings my family so close together.
uhuru, no love for the beast
paul.Kagame. assistant editor.

Canada's Water not for SALE

Welcome this is our last part in our series on water.
Read thoroughly. We realize these blogs/articles are long, however information is that way sip slowly and enjoy.
uhuru.peace. Butterfly Williams, Nevada

Canada's Water


Courtesy of Field Agent R. Edgerton | By Unknown (If anyone recognizes the author of this document please ask them to contact us, as we believe in getting permission before syndication. Thank You)


"There is a common assumption that the world's water supply is huge and infinite. This assumption is false. At some time in the near future, water bankruptcy will result."

Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians

With more fresh water than any other place on earth, Canada seems to be in an enviable position as the new millennium approaches and the experts predict that water will be "the oil of the 21st century." The trouble with being in an enviable position, however, is sometimes the wrong people envy you. There are those who cast covetous looks at our ample water, whether for greener fairways on golf courses in Arizona, or parched farms in the American Midwest, or whole areas suffering drastic shortages of drinking water in distant parts of the globe. And there are the "privatizers," those who want to make a buck from water.

Some of the most alarming stories are going largely unreported, certainly by the Western press, the most alarming being the devastation of Yugoslavia brought about by NATO bombing. The most recent attack - April 19, the 26th day of NATO airstrikes - hit a huge chemical plant in Baric, 15 kilometres southwest of Belgrade.

Yugoslav scientists are reacting in horror at the NATO attacks, warning that they are ruining huge aquifiers - underground water sources - that serve areas and populations far beyond the area of conflict. Dr. Momir Komatina, author of 12 books and 260 scientific essays on underground water, says the NATO bombing is destroying not just military targets but the entire ecology of the region. Other scientists say the NATO bombing is creating "a new Chernobyl" in the Balkans.

Dr. Luke Radoja, a Belgrade agronomist, has written, "By burning down enormous quantities of naphtha and its derivatives, more than 100 highly toxic chemical compounds that pollute water, air and soil are released?. Just one litre of spilt naphtha or its derivatives pollutes one million litres of water. These poisons endanger all life forms, not only on the territory of Yugoslavia, but the territories of our neighbouring countries as well as the wider region of Europe because the winds and water-flows are directed right back to Central Europe, the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea region."

Alarming reports from "water-poor" countries have been appearing regularly in wire-service reports around the world. Last month there was a report from Beijing that 20 million Chinese are short of drinking water because of a severe drought affecting Sichuan, Guangxi, Gansu and Guangdong provinces. More than 200 million acres of farmland in China are "parched."

Iran has been hit by the worst water shortage in three decades. The official IRNA news agency reports that Iran is short by 1.2 billion cubic metres of water for farming. The shortage in Iran is expected to worsen starting in June, with severe drought predicted for the summer of 1999.

In Bangladesh this month, hundreds of residents of Dhaka attacked a power supply office, barricaded roads and burned vehicles to protest against a scarcity of running water. The Dhaka Water and Sewage Authority says more than 30 per cent of the city's nine million residents have no access to drinking water. Dhaka normally requires 1.4 billion litres of water a day and is getting only 960 million litres.

Researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology reported in March that rainfall in Europe is so full of toxic pesticides that much of it is too dangerous to drink. The problem is that pesticides sprayed on crops evaporate, are absorbed by clouds, then return to earth in rainwater. Concentrations of toxic substances in the rain, especially after heavy storms, now exceed the limit for drinking water set by the European Union and Switzerland. The same problem occurs in North America. In the United States, one billion pounds of weed and bug killers are applied to the land every year, most of which ends up in the country's water systems.

Speaking on Canada's situation, Barlow says wetland loss includes 65 per cent of Atlantic coastal marshes, 70 per cent of Southern Ontario wetlands, 71 per cent of Prairie wetlands, and 80 per cent of the Fraser River Delta in British Columbia. "Over a century of mining, forestry and large-scale industry has affected virtually every body of water in Canada and toxic chemicals are found even in the most remote parts of the Far North," Barlow says.

A report from London says half the people in the developed world, and more in poor countries, carry the stomach bacterium Helicobacter pylori, usually caused by slime building up in water pipes. The bacterium causes stomach ulcers and cancer. The threat of Helicobacter pylori is particularly dangerous in unchlorinated water in wells and water supplies in developing countries.

And here we are in Canada with water thundering over Niagara Falls, countless freshwater lakes, rivers and streams, frozen water in the snow, ice and icebergs of the Arctic, oceans of water coursing underground, and one of the largest land masses in the world to catch rain and snow from the sky. Canadians worry more about flood than famine.

"The wars of the future are going to be fought over water," says Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, a citizens' group with 100,000 members. She cites a recent United Nations study that says by 2025 - only 25 years away - two-thirds of the world will be "water-poor."

Is Canada morally obliged to share its water with an increasingly thirsty world?

Can it even be done without upsetting the delicate ecosystems?

And if it can be done, who's going to do it? And who's going to profit by it? When something valuable becomes scarce - and drinkable, usable water is becoming scarcer and scarcer - inevitably the profit-makers find a way to jump into the game. This is what alarms Barlow most of all. The free-traders want water to be regarded as a commodity, something to be bought and sold, perhaps included as an integral part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This makes environmentalists shudder.

In a paper released last month, The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) said, "Water is an essential need, a public trust, not a commodity. It belongs to everyone and to no one." CELA argues that bulk exports of water will not help water-poor countries:

"Even large-scale water exports cannot possibly satisfy the social and economic needs of distant societies. "Water shipped halfway around the world will only be affordable to the privileged and will deepen inequities between rich and poor. International trade in bulk water will allow elites to assure the quality of their own drinking water supplies, while permitting them to ignore the pollution of their local waters and the waste of their water management systems."

Commenting specifically on the Great Lakes Basin, shared by Canada and the United States, CELA says: "Changing water levels and flows will have unpredictable and harmful consequences to basin habitat, biodiversity, shorelines, jobs and culture, particularly to First Nations. Lower water levels will mean greater disturbance of highly contaminated sediments in shallow harbours and connecting channels and less dilution of polluted waters."

The CELA paper was deliberately released on March 31, 1999, a year to the day after the province of Ontario issued a permit to a private company to collect Great Lakes water and transport it to Asia. The permit was issued to Nova Group, a company in Sault Ste. Marie, allowing it to ship up to 600 million litres of Lake Superior water to Asia by 2002. After a public outcry on both sides of the border, the permit was withdrawn and the deal never went through. But Barlow, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Environmental Law Association expect there will be more such attempts in coming years as people seek to turn a profit from water.

Dennis Mills, a Liberal MP, wants Canada to open its water resources to international trade. On its website, Environment Canada predicts that Canada soon will be in the commercial water export business. The National Post has jumped on the export-water bandwagon, calling water "blue gold." The Post's financial columnist, Terry Corcoran, has written: "Canada is a future OPEC of water. Here's a worthwhile long-term bet: by 2010, Canada will be exporting large quantities of fresh water to the U.S., and more by tanker to parched nations all over the globe."

Paul Muldoon, executive director of CELA and a co-author of the report - Maude Barlow had much input into it - says Ontario is lagging in its efforts to manage its water resources. There is a law to block water exports, the 1989 Water Transfer Control Act, but Muldoon says it has never been proclaimed. Another provincial tool, enacted in June 1998, is the Surface Water Transfer Policy. It expressed opposition to water transfers, but carries no legal weight, Muldoon says. The latest provincial regulation aimed at managing Ontario's water supply is the Ontario Water Resources Act, which was proposed in December 1998. Its purpose was to give legal weight to the Surface Water Transfer Policy, but it has not been approved by the Ontario Cabinet.

Muldoon says protecting Ontario's water is more urgent than ever because of growing world demand for water, and because entrepreneurs increasingly are looking for ways to export and sell) large amounts of Canadian water. They are also looking for precedents, anything that could be used to have water designated as a "commodity" that can be bought, sold and exported.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy is on the record as saying water is "not just a commodity." He said this in March 1999 when he announced an export moratorium) that will remain in place until all the provinces can agree on a method to ban water exports permanently. The provinces share jurisdiction with the federal government over lakes and rivers in Canada.

There may already be a precedent, however, as it is legal to export bottled water, which is not considered a "bulk" export. McCurdy Enterprises of Newfoundland wants to "harvest" 13 billion gallons of water a year from Gisborne Lake, an 11-square-mile lake in Newfoundland. The plan is to take water from the lake by pipeline five miles to the coastal town of Grand LaPierre, where it would be loaded into scrubbed, single-hull former oil tankers. McCurdy Enterprises also plans to open a water-bottling plant in Grand LaPierre that would employ 150 people. The local municipality approved the plan, as did the province, but it is on hold because of the moratorium announced by the federal government.

Another Canadian company, Global Water Corporation, has a bulk-water purchase agreement with the Alaskan community of Sitka, which would allow the company to take five billion gallons of water a year from the glacier-fed Blue Lake for export to China. The bottled water would be contained in five-gallon jugs.

Other water export schemes have been cooked up over the years. In the late 1950s, American engineers prepared a plan to dam part of James Bay to divert water to the American Midwest. In the 1960s, there was a similar plan to take water from the Yukon and Mackenzie Rivers in Canada's North and divert it to the American West. In 1991, British Columbia gave six Canadian companies licences to export bulk shipments of water. One of the companies formed a joint venture with an American firm to ship Canadian water to Goleta, California, which was experiencing a severe drought. British Columbia later withdrew from the scheme, abiding by the federal government's moratorium.

In February 1999, The New York Times carried a story on Canada's position in a water-rich, water-poor world. It began:

"For just about as long as there has been a border with the United States, some Canadians have believed that Americans covet their country and the resources it contains.

"A few conspiracy subscribers still believe Washington harbors ambitions about northern expansion similar to those that provoked the first armed incursion into what is now Canada in the 18th century. And a certain type of Canadian is sure that free-trade agreements are a plot to make Canada a commercial colony of the United States.

"But there is one subject that leaves a broad range of even normally clear-eyed and level-headed Canadians looking for American subterfuge - fresh water.

"From the thunderous torrent at Niagara Falls to the perpetual rainy coast of British Columbia, Canada is awash in more fresh water than almost any other place on earth. But although it contains 20 per cent of the world's known freshwater resources, Canada believes it has little or none to spare."

The Times article quotes Barlow of the Council of Canadians as saying, "I don't think the United States is going to send up an army to take our water. I don't think they have to." What Barlow means is that under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canadian bulk water may already be subject to continental exploitation, and unless Canada acts firmly and forcefully it almost certainly will be. Canadian bottled water already is included in NAFTA. The difference between a litre of bottled water and a supertanker of bulk water may turn out to be merely a matter of size and semantics.

Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association expects the first serious pressure on Canada's water resources to come from the U.S. Southwest where development is rapidly outgrowing the region's water supply. He also expects pressure from the American plains, where intensive agriculture is depleting aquifiers, the scientific term for what we know as underground water supplies. Muldoon fears that even a modest water export precedent "could open the floodgates, changing Canada's water supply position for the worse - and forever."

An irony here, Maude Barlow points out, is that even an attempt to ban water exports would acknowledge that fresh water in lakes and rivers is a commodity subject to trade-agreement regulations. Her mission now is to emphasize Canada's sovereign rights, its right to control its own resources.

In this she would have an ally in Col. Pierre LeBlanc, commander of Canadian Forces in the North. Col. LeBlanc chose the creation of the new territory of Nunavut as an opportune time to warn Canadians their sovereignty will be affected if global warming results in an open Northwest Passage, which he expects to happen in 10 to 15 years. A navigable Northwest Passage would cut shipping time in half between Europe and the Pacific because ships now must use the Panama Canal.

"In the old days there was very little activity in the North, especially when it was all frozen up," he told CBC News in Iqaluit in March. "But now that it appears it's thawing, and with the end of the Cold War, there's a lot more activity, so maybe we require more active surveillance of the North." With the diminishing supply of fresh water in the world, Col. LeBlanc says it is only a matter of time until foreign ships sail into the Canadian Arctic and take on fresh water without detection.

Meanwhile, the Council of Canadians keeps churning out warnings, which are worth reading and heeding. Such as:

• The consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, twice the rate of world population growth;
• The underground aquifier that supplies one-third of the water for the continental United States is being depleted eight times faster than it is being replenished;
• Saudi Arabia is a net exporter of wheat using non-renewable water reserves. Saudi Arabia is expected to exhaust its water reserves in 50 years;
• The manufacture of computer wafers, used in the production of computer chips, uses up to 18 million litres of water a day. Around the world, the computer industry uses 1.5 trillion litres of water and produces 300 billion litres of wastewater every year.

Barlow expects the first severe impact of the coming water bankruptcy will hit China, where annual industrial water use is expected to rise from 52 billion tons to 269 billion tons in the next 30 years, due to a huge population increase and rising incomes that mean more indoor plumbing. "China will be the first country in the world that will literally have to restructure its economy to respond to water scarcity," Barlow says.

We will be hearing much more about water in coming months and years. And if wars of the future will be fought over water, Canada will be in the thick of the battle.

We at Uhuru thought this information would be interesting to those that have either already to begun to prepare for this, and for those that haven’t heads up.

Uhuru and Peace

End

Water Privatization : Ask the experts or My water so what u gonna drink?

welcome, we had to include this as part of the water piece, express your opinion.
We recognizee that most afluent americans in urban and rural areas attempt to drink"clean" water. As if unconsciously we have accepted that our fresh water supply, or at least our local acces to it is unsafe.

Read this and hit us up, or better yet hit your local politician

uhuru.peace.

Water Privatization : Ask the experts

Both sides !!

Article by the BBC. A copy of this article is available at www.bbc.co.uk/haveyoursay.

Courtesy of Field Agent N. Renruth

World leaders at the Evian Summit have called for the number of people without access to safe drinking water or proper sanitation to be halved by 2015.

But critics are worried that the UN-set targets amount to a push for privatisation in the water sector.

They argue that private companies have no incentive to provide water to poor and rural communities.

The pro-privatisation camp, on the other hand, argues that the poor already pay more than the rich for water in many countries because the state has failed them. They say only the private sector can make the necessary investment.

What do you think? Is privatisation an effective solution, or does it lack credibility in the Third World, where water shortages are most acute? What role should multinationals play in the provision of water?

Mike Wooldridge:

Hello I'm Mike Wooldridge and welcome to the second of our forums on water. This week the leaders of the industrialised world renewed their commitment to halve the numbers of people without access to safe water or proper sanitation by 2015. But what's the best way to do this? Through governments or through private companies? To take your questions on how best to manage water and the pros and cons of privatisation we have Michael Klein, vice president for private sector development at the World Bank in Washington and Trevor Ngwane of the Anti Privatisation Forum in Johannesburg.

Can I begin by asking both of you to outline your case on the issue of water privatisation in just a minute or so. Michael Klein first.

Michael Klein:

Yes thank you. I think that a lot of the debate is cast in terms of public versus private and I think this is pretty much beside the issue. The real issue is what gets greater access to water to people all over the world and fundamentally here after lots of decades of trying to improve water systems we come to the realisation which is pretty obvious in the first place that somebody has to pay for the water, it's either consumers through user fees or it's governments through subsidies. But governments all over the world have either found it politically impossible to raise consumer tariffs or fiscally impossible to provide subsidies. And neither the public sector nor the private sector can invest when nobody pays at the end of the day. So the solution lies more in getting to grips with the user fee problem or the subsidies than with privatisation. The next question is then whether public providers or private providers in any particular case are better suited to do so and that's a case-by-case decision.

Mike Wooldridge:

Thank you very much indeed Michael Klein. Now Trevor Ngwane you presumably do not think that private providers are the best people to supply water?

Trevor Ngwane:

Yes Mike, we believe that water is life, everyone should have access to water. Without water there is disease, hardship, misery. It is in the public interest for everyone to have access to water and it is better if the state provides water on the basis of need. Now with privatisation private companies come in and provide water on the basis of profit. So it's a clash between need and profit and I think in this case, with water, we should prioritise need, therefore we should have the government make means to provide every citizen with water.

Mike Wooldridge:

Trevor Ngwane thank you very much indeed. Now we have on the line Charles Moore from Edinburgh in Scotland. You've a point I think you particular want to put to Michael Klein.

Charles Moore:

Yes please. It's in the form of a question really. What I'd like to know is can you give any concrete examples of third world countries that have benefited from privatisation in the sense of clean water being made available universally without there being massive - and I mean big - increases in charges?

Mike Wooldridge:

So Michael Klein there's the challenge - are there any examples?

Michael Klein:

There are - first most of the cases that have been analysed where private participation came into water systems in the 1990s, which is when this mostly started, have had good physical success, in the sense that they have increased connections, have improved reliability of water supply, duration of water supply, etc. And the cases that have been looked at are in Ivory Coast, Guinea, in several Colombian cities, in several Argentine cities, in two Bolivian cities etc. So I would think on the - in Manila as well - on technical grounds the private sector has performed in a number of cases where previously public sector companies had problems. Does that lead to universal service connections? In many cases we're so far away from universal service that it has not moved there yet but neither had before the public sector. Now has this happened without price increases? On average in the developing world prices in the beginning of the '90s were at about 30% of the cost of water systems. So either prices have to rise to make these investments possible or governments have to provide subsidies. Now in a number of cases de facto governments have in various ways provided subsidies so in cases like originally Manila, Buenos Aries etc. the way the subsidies had provided overall price levels initially stayed low, in some cases have later gone up again but over time I think in most places prices will have to rise regardless of whether it's public or private.

Mike Wooldridge:

Trevor Ngwane if I can just bring you in from Johannesburg. Do you accept that those would be examples of success, the ones just cited there by Michael Klein?

Trevor Ngwane:

No, not at all. I mean in Bolivia, in Cochabamba, there was virtual civil war when privatisation led to hundreds of thousands losing their access to water. Here in South Africa since our government made moves to privatise water - note it moves to privatise, it's not yet fully privatised - already there is social conflict, the trade unions are unhappy, people are getting cut off from water. Two years ago we had an outbreak of cholera - a waterborne disease - because people who ironically had been getting free water under the apartheid regime now found themselves without water under the democratic government because of privatisation. As a result more than 200 people died from the cholera outbreak. I would say in Africa, especially the third world countries, privatising water is not good. I think too for first world countries.

Mike Wooldridge:

Okay, we have on the line now a caller who I think particularly wants to put a question to you, Trevor Ngwane, Neal Lang from Florida in the United States. Go ahead please.

Neal Lang:

Hi Trevor. My question is how much oil do you think would be available without any private sector involvement in its distribution?

Trevor Ngwane:

How much water would be available without private ..?

Neal Lang:

Oil. Oil as a commodity is very much like water in the way it's found - it's a natural resource, in most cases it has to be lifted from beneath the surface, it requires processing and it requires a logistic system for delivering it to the consumer. Now my question is how much oil would be available if it were free and there were no private sector involvement in the distribution, the logistics associated with the distribution of oil.

Mike Wooldridge:

You work actually for a water company don't you Mr Lang?

Neal Lang:

I work for a company that manufactures water pumps yes.

Trevor Ngwane:

Okay let's not mix water and oil because they don't mix at all and we don't drink oil and people can live without oil but just a day without water I think you'd find it very hard to survive. I think that water should not be handled like oil, I think that water is a basic need and I think that in South Africa at least and in most of Africa people were getting water, of course not up to maximum what we want - optimum but since the privatisation came in we see people going without water, in cities and places where the infrastructure is there - they cut of your individual household water because you are too poor to pay. In South Africa with an unemployment rate of 40%, 70% of the workforce don't get a living wage, as a result many people are not in a position to afford privatised water.

Mike Wooldridge:

Neal Lang do you accept that - what Trevor Ngwane's essentially saying there is that it simply doesn't work in terms of getting water particularly to the very poorest?

Neal Lang:

Okay I have a follow up then for Trevor. What would happen to the distribution of food, arguably that's just as important as water for people's existence, what would happen if you didn't pay the farmers for growing the food?

Trevor Ngwane:

I think you are getting closer to the point now because we do have a problem of hunger and famine in the world because food is provided on the basis of profit. So I think even with food we should have more state intervention, not just food aid programmes but governments of the world joining hands and committing themselves to ensure that no child sleeps on an empty stomach. So I think food is a good example of where we need vigorous state intervention in favour and to the advantage of the poor.

Neal Lang:

Are you suggesting that the government should take over the growing of food like it did in Russia with collectives - did you see the results there? I mean that's a terrible idea.

Trevor Ngwane:

I think that we're not yet talking about socialising all the Stalinist system which happened in Russia, the Soviet Union, we're talking about a capitalist system which is near liberal. Only 20 years ago it was common knowledge and common sense that the state provides water, the state runs the roads and then with Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the new liberal offensive we called this attack on the state, now people are telling us that the state is good for nothing. I think it's just an ideology and a change in capitalism. So I'm not talking about socialism, not yet anyway.

Mike Wooldridge:

Thank you for your points Neal Lang. If I can just pursue with you Michael Klein if I may in more detail this question of the pricing of water through privatisation, we've had quite a number of e-mails which reflect a division of opinion on the whole issue generally but several of them have to do with pricing. Let me just quote you a couple. One from Paul Matthews in the Hague in the Netherlands: "What action can be taken to ensure that the cost of water will not rise above affordable levels in the third world?" And similarly from Rose in Australia: "What's to stop water companies from hiking up the prices?"

Michael Klein:

I think I would start off by pointing out that the big debate and the big issue is not about the pricing of water to those who have already access to water but it's providing access who don't have good modern water systems. And those people who don't have access, about a billion people in the world, they pay a lot more per cubic metre of water, let's say, than those who are connected because they either have to spend lots of time walking, they have to drill wells, they may have to pay private water vendors who sell in buckets or tank trucks and that costs typically at least ten times as much per unit of water than those people who are connected. Now therefore if you extend service to those people with better investment, better operations and maintenance their prices will fall, they will have the ability to get better water at lower prices and that directly affects affordability in a positive way.

Then there's the question of those people who are already connected and ultimately also those where regardless of excess investments and so on they're just too poor to be able to afford, that's a question then on how much subsidy is available to help bring the costs down - bring the price down for those because the costs after all are there and cannot be avoided. And here is the question of what kind of subsidy systems can actually work in practice and there are two questions, number one, do governments have the money to provide the subsidies and number two, can we target them so that actually the poor get them. The experience over the last 40, 50 years with government run subsidy programmes in most of the developing world has been, unfortunately, that on average subsidies tended to go to the better off rather than the poor. And so we need to focus very much on where the money comes from for these subsidies and how to target this.

Mike Wooldridge:

So a long way to go in other words to get it right you would consider. Let me just put to you another e-mail that we've had which suggests that there are contradictions in the whole business, this from Gertrude Lyatuu in Dar es Salaam Tanzania, where you indeed at the World Bank have a project. Gertrude says: "The government of Tanzania has privatised water here in Dar es Salaam, at the same time the Government entered it into a credit agreement with the World Bank for the Dar es Salaam water supply and sanitation project. Who benefits from such initiatives?"

Michael Klein:

Most of the so-called privatisations, particularly in the lower income countries and particularly in Africa, are not full privatisations. The private sector tends to be brought in to either just - under a management contract to run a system but the investments are still borne by the state or sometimes the private sector comes in under a so-called leasing system where the private sector also takes on responsibility for billing and collection and those are typically systems which are always government financed partially in this particular case, as you mentioned, maybe with the World Bank credit. So the question here is the private sector in these cases doesn't bring finance, the private sector in these cases only makes sense if it has a management and technical capability to bring to the project that improves on operations. So that's an issue quite independent from pricing and financing.

Mike Wooldridge:

Okay I'm going to bring another caller in now, Belinda Calaguas who works with Wateraid - a development organisation that's very much focused on all these matters based here in London. Belinda I think you have questions for both Michael Klein and also for Trevor Ngwane.

Belinda Calaguas:

My question to Michael is that experience shows already that the international private sector is actually not interested in the least developed countries, in the poorest countries, nor are they interested in the poorer sections of even the middle income countries, hasn't the World Bank actually oversold private sector participation and instead what it should be doing is really to support public utilities to improve their services and make them more efficient?

Michael Klein:

I would agree with you that some of us, as well as others, have oversold the switch from public to private as the main step and that's why I also agree acting against casting the bait in terms of public versus private. The real issue is who pays at the end of the day. In those concession arrangements and so-called privatisation arrangements, it's never full privatisation, where adequate incentives have been built in and contractual obligations have been given to private sector companies there have been significant expansion of service, for example in La Paz in Bolivia in the [name] neighbourhood several hundreds thousand people are being connected extra, in Manila there are special programmes, in Buenos Aries there are special programmes to connect poor neighbourhoods. It always depends on whether there's somebody there who pays for it, either a subsidy scheme like exists in Chile or some internal subsidy system embedded in the concessions. So the private sector is serving poor communities when it has an incentive to do so but they don't do it for free. Nor can the government do it - government's water company do it for free, the taxpayer at the end of the day has to pay that subsidy.

Belinda Calaguas:

I think that in the first instance that the real issue here is how do you improve the capacity of the public sector, of governments, to act to regulate where they bring in the private sector, I'm not talking about the international private sector. There are countless domestic local private operators in every country that provides some level of service but the governments are not in any position, at this point in time, to regulate them, improve their standards and all of that. I think that that is where the investment should be going in relation to the private sector but also in terms of getting the public sector up to speed in terms of how to set up its regulation.

Mike Wooldridge:

Okay, and what was the question that you wanted to put to Trevor Ngwane of the Anti Privatisation Forum?

Belinda Calaguas:

For Trevor I think that there has been some successful struggle against cutting off people in South Africa and these are extra legal means of trying to make sure that people continue to have access to water. But my question is on two counts, first is what is the positive agenda, what is the constructive agenda, the campaign in South Africa is bringing to government, who is after all trying to provide services, after all they put up the free basic water service and all of that? The second point is about the pricing of water, I think that our colleagues in South Africa need to understand that water cannot be provided for free, it has to come from somewhere - taxation or from consumers actually paying service or from core subsidies from other consumers. I want to be able to hear from Trevor what the constructive agenda is.

Mike Wooldridge:

So there's a challenge there Trevor if you like from another campaigning organisation, you're not being sufficiently constructive.

Trevor Ngwane:

We do have our proposals, we really hope that the government and the World Bank, IMF, will listen to us. In South Africa our proposal is that water should follow the line of our constitution and Bill of Rights and be regarded as every citizens right, that's what our Bill of Rights says. So our government has to learn to respect that. Secondly, to achieve that we recommend exactly what Belinda says - cross subsidisation from high volume users, which is mostly companies, industry, to low volume users, which is mostly domestic users and the poor. So we'd like that, we should have a pricing system - we call it block tariff system. So for the first say 200 litres, you get that for free, and then after that it starts going up and the more water you use in terms of volume the more you pay per unit because water is a scarce resource. We cannot use water and price it as if you were pricing pairs of shoes, so that the guy with money can save and use more water, the result in South Africa is wastage - people use water for their swimming pools, Jacuzzi, cleaning their cars, whereas their next door neighbours are living without water to drink. So we recommend cross subsidisation. We also recommend that the state should be a major player, a vigorous player, in the provision of water, we don't want this responsibility to be abrogated and be handed over to the private sector. That is our position.

Mike Wooldridge:

Let me just put two e-mails to you. One that's come in since we began from John McDaniel in the United States who says: "Isn't privatisation of water just a signal that the local governments can't control corruption - how do you stop this corruption in Africa?" And from Kwame in the United States as well who said to Trevor and all who are against privatisation: "How long should the remotest regions of developing countries wait to get clean water - is a 50 year wait okay for you?" Now before we do turn to Michael Klein on that let me get your response Trevor on both of those points made in e-mails.

Trevor Ngwane:

Okay usually in Africa it's privatisation which brings corruption because that is when multinational corporations find a need to bribe politicians, put my tender on top, shortlist me and this and that. So usually corruption is made worse by privatisation. On remote areas waiting a long time, it is true that one major argument for privatisation has been that the multinational corporations will lay out - it's called rolling out remote areas. But in our experience this has not really happened because basically what happens is they cherry pick, they choose the juiciest, most profitable areas which usually are the cities with the certain middle class and then they are not interested in remote rural areas where they know they're unlikely to get a return because people are too poor to pay.

Mike Wooldridge:

Michael Klein just the corruption issue perhaps, what's your view on that and of course if it is a big issue in terms of water supplies and improving sanitation then it can apply of course in the private sector as in the public?

Michael Klein:

Yes once again the issue is not public versus private, it's the governing systems in the particular place. As we well know in public sector systems in all sorts of countries, not only in developing countries, there tends to be a certain amount of corruption when it comes to the supply of equipment or civil works in public sector run infrastructure systems. So the argument that by privatising the operations of the system as well the corruption is going to be bigger I don't buy and we have decades of experience that public sector systems have not performed. After all most of the world tried, as Trevor pointed out, for many, many years to work with public sector systems and in a number of cases it hasn't worked well. So when you bring private sector companies in it doesn't mean that incentives or possibilities for corruption disappear, what can happen, if it's reasonably well designed, is that there's a better arm's length relationship, if, like Linda says, you strengthen the regulatory authorities there's more transparency, more arms length relationships, in fact in many ways privatisation attracts more criticism and it's a good thing, that's precisely what it is supposed to do because people, particularly in the government, find it easier to complain about private companies. And one example to close with, in Buenos Aries when we visited areas in slums of Buenos Aries people said we have been waiting for water for decades, now that we have a private company we have some leverage because complaints about private companies are politically much better than complaints about state owned companies.

Mike Wooldridge:

It's clear from many who have contacted the forum that the issue is essentially about pricing and particularly I think for people who contacted us from Africa, Eddie Lee, for example, originally from Liberia though now living in the United States sent an e-mail asking: "How are poor people living in Africa going to pay for water? More specifically how are my brothers and sisters who are living in rural Liberia who are already poverty stricken going to pay for water?"

Michael Klein:

Well at the moment most people in Africa do not have access to modern water systems and they get their water either from rivers by walking hours etc. etc. or by paying private water vendors. And once again the price they pay either through their effort or in cash is actually much higher per unit of water consumption than in the relatively modern systems in those few areas that actually have access to them. And so the question - the big challenge is providing greater access to more areas throughout the country. How is that going to happen? Public sector companies had universal service targets forever in their charters and haven't been able to deliver in many of the developing countries, now does that mean the private sector will automatically do it? No only the pricing problem is solved. So what are the intermediate solutions? I think somebody made the remark that domestic private companies have got more of a role to play and I would think we see that in Cambodia and Paraguay and Mauritania and a number of places where governments are allowing local small private water companies, community development systems etc. to provide water. In these systems the community pays in one form or another, either by putting in effort in kind or by having payment systems in cash in the system and that's the most - domestic private companies are the most likely candidates to expand water access in remote areas.

Mike Wooldridge:

Trevor Ngwane that e-mail that we had there, as I was saying, was about Africa in particular, the question was about Liberia, I think that you feel there's a big cultural issue, don't you, I believe you have said that in Africa you simply don't have water for sale, is it as simple as that?

Trevor Ngwane:

Well if you go back through African history and most societies before capitalism, before the commoditization of everything, where everything now has got a price - from water, food, sex, I don't know even going in to pay the priest. I think we have quite a different value system, for example African hospitality is that you have to help your neighbour and when someone visits you, even if it's a stranger, you give them something to eat, which I think is something which is done even in the West. But if we have nothing the least you can give them is water. Now we find ourselves in a situation where we can't even afford the water which we always took for granted, in fact at the moment our government is busy with these multinational corporations installing prepaid water meters, which means that people must buy a card for 50 rand before they can get water. I've heard that in Britain prepaid water meters are illegal, so I don't know why something which is illegal in Britain - buy water - the British multinational corporation wants to do in Africa.

Mike Wooldridge:

We have a caller on the line from Africa, Tony Adams calling from Accra in Ghana, what question did you want to put?

Tony Adams:

How can the poor in Africa afford privatised expensive water because anybody coming to take part in any privatisation is interested in profits, that means that at the end of the day the water that is being produced will be very expensive? I think that Africa has got to a point where we have to privatise everything, privatisation is a good thing but if anything should be privatised at all I think water should be the last because it must remain a government responsibility.

Mike Wooldridge:

Are you saying we're at the point of last resort, that the record does suggest that it needs to be privatised or it should remain in the hands of the state even with all the difficulties?

Tony Adams:

I think it should remain in the hands of the state because if you look in Africa the state has a very big role in making sure that certain social responsibilities are fulfilled and such social responsibilities include the provision of water, plain water and safe water.

Mike Wooldridge:

Okay, just before I put that point to you Michael Klein can I also just read an e-mail we've had in from Spain from David Tabar who says: "Who will police the water companies and what penalties will apply for the environmental damage caused by the pursuit of profits?" What would you say in answer both to Tony Adams who was on the line there and also to that particular point in the e-mail?

Michael Klein: First of all the notion that private water - water provided by private providers is somehow more expensive than state water provided that in many cases is not true, there are some cases in the world the state owned water companies that are very efficient in many other cases there are private water companies that are very efficient, so once again it's case-by-case. State owned companies also need profits to finance their investment, so there's no fundamental difference there. It comes back to the pricing issue and I think as Trevor outlined before the block tariff approach, the lifeline subsidies and so on is something that we probably all agree on as an approach to that. Then when it comes to - if the pricing solutions are found that are acceptable to those concerned in the system then the question is who provides the water? And here is then the question it should remain in the hands of the state was said, in many cases those hands are empty and remain empty and the issue for most people in the countries we have to look at the coverage of water in Lagos, for example, in Nigeria some 6% of the total city and it's after all the major city in the country have actual water access in their houses from the public sector water company, most people get their water from private water vendors. So the private sector is the domestic small private sector is de facto the provider of water to the vast majority of people all over Africa and in the rest of the poor countries. And the issue is how to get access to better and more modern systems to all of those who pay a lot? And that may involve in a number of cases using private parties, in other cases it may use public parties, or community development organisations, local private sector, whatever the appropriate solution in a particular case is.

Mike Wooldridge:

And just a quick question to both of you, Michael Klein and also Trevor Ngwane, this in a e-mail from G. Ngan in Halle, Germany: "What do you think about the public sector owning 51% and the rest being owned by the private sector, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of such an arrangement?" Trevor Ngwane.

Trevor Ngwane:

We have found that as soon as you have the idea of public/private partnerships then you get the government, the state's federal system all mixed up. Instead of the state having the priority of looking after its citizens, the wellbeing of the citizens, the state starts to think like a business enterprise. So you get, what we call, commercialisation can take the form of corporation but basically government behaving and conducting its business as if it was the private sector. So just back to Mr Klein, I don't think it's a case-by-case issue but it's a question of principle, all must have water, that is the problem, not how to make people pay for water because if all have water then we won't have problem of disease. Secondly, the question of inequalities are increasing in the world, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, who is getting richer? It is the big multinational corporations. Now Klein is trying to fudge the difference between a big company like Bechtel, By Water, Suez and a small African informal trader who carries water on their donkey's back. I think these two are different.

Mike Wooldridge:

Trevor Ngwane thank you very much. Michael Klein?

Michael Klein: I would have thought that de facto when you look at what is touted under the label of privatisation you have de facto already a whole range of mixed ownership structures. Trevor's quoted the case of South Africa as pretty much all public sector and the issue is one of pricing. Then when you look at the public/private partnerships in poor countries in Africa almost none of them have majority private ownership, most of them have government majority ownership many times, hundred per cent government ownership with the private sector only taking management responsibility, sometimes a little bit of investment responsibility etc. So I think it's a number of combinations can make a sense, it's a question of who happens to be a competent operator, who is a good provider of finance etc. etc. So I think very much in the spirit of the caller who asked for the 51/49% share, we need to be flexible about what the model is. With Trevor I would agree the principle that all people should have access to water, that is the principle, the principle is not whether it's state or public or private or small or large.

Mike Wooldridge:

And just before we end a statistic to underline that was calculated this week by one aid agency that during the three days of the G8 summit at Evian in France more than 170,000 people will have died of diseases triggered by the lack of safe drinking water. Well that's all we have time for today, I'd like to thank you all for joining the forum and also thanks to our two guests - Michael Klein and Trevor Ngwane. Don't forget to take part in our online vote on privatisation, you can find that and the transcript of this forum on our special water site at www.bbc.co.uk/haveyoursay. Goodbye.

End

Thirsty ? Are we running out of water ?

welcome we have always attempted to include as much relevant information to our people, and here is something many have continued to overlook, keep in mind disease spreads in areas with poor water quality.

Thirsty ? Are we running out of water ?

As of late several infomercials, and media houses and syndicated channels have begun talking about the issue of water. Not just the Earths water, and how it relates to animals. Specifically drinking water and how we may be running out of it.

I talked with several friends regarding the issue, but know one seemed to understand the information given. We talked about how developed nations should be better equipped to deal with the situation, but according to experts maybe not.

We present the beginning of a series regarding water and the possible impact upon our people world wide.

The following information was gathered from CNN

Water privatisation: Ask Boutros Boutros Ghali

In 1985 Dr Boutros Ghali famously said that "the next war in the Middle East will be fought over water, not politics".

He has since said that conflicts over water in key hotspots throughout the Middle East can be resolved through the creation of a dedicated international monitoring organisation.

But he has also warned that future population growth will continue to put further strain on water supplies, creating the potential for further disputes.

Special note

“The major water for the USA is the Ogallala Aquifer

Ninety-five percent of the United States' fresh water is underground. One crucial source is a huge underground reservoir, the 800-mile Ogallala aquifer which stretches from Texas to South Dakota and waters one fifth of US irrigated land.

The aquifer was formed over millions of years, but has since been cut off from its original natural sources. It is being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic metres a year – amounting to a total depletion to date of a volume equal to the annual flow of 18 Colorado Rivers. Some estimates say it will dry up in as little as 25 years. “

Former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali took your questions on water in Talking Point.

Transcript

Lyse Doucet:
Welcome to Talking Point, I'm Lyse Doucet, we're broadcasting on BBC World Television, Radio, Online, as well as interactive television in the United Kingdom. This week we're discussing water. It's a resource most of us take for granted. But the United Nations is warning that within the next two decades all of us, no matter where we live, will live with a third less water. And as it is now more than a billion people don't have access to clean supplies.

So what can be done? Last week at the French spa resort of Evian leaders of industrialised nations renewed a pledge to halve the number of people worldwide that don't have access to clean water and sanitation. The populations are growing fast and we're using more and more water. Indeed in developed nations ten times more than those in poorer states. Not surprisingly environmentalists are warning of a global water crisis, one that lies at the very heart of our survival.

We're joined on this programme today from our Paris studio by Boutros Boutros Ghali. He was the UN Secretary General from 1992 - 1996 and he made water a key issue during his tenure. He once famously said that the next war in the Middle East would be fought over water and not politics.

Boutros Boutros Ghali welcome to Talking Point. Do you still worry that there could be a war over water?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
Yes certainly because we have a real problem and I believe that water will be during this century more important than oil. We will have a problem, as you know, just to give you one example, more than 70 million people die every year due to the pollution of water. And half of the population of the world has not clean water. So there is a real discrimination between the people who are able to use clean water and the population who are not able to use clean water.

Lyse Doucet:
And what region of the world is most at danger of going to war or having a conflict over scarce water?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
You will have a problem - for example in my country Egypt there is no rain and hundred per cent of the water used in Egypt is based on the Nile and the Nile Basin. My country being a downstream country the sources of the Nile belong to other countries - you have Ethiopia, you have Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Congo Democratic and the Sudan - represent the sources of the Nile or share the Nile basin. So we have in Egypt a kind of obsession of security water and how to deal with it in the future because as you know you will have a kind of growing population in the different parts of the world and they will need more water and more water used in Ethiopia or more water used in the Sudan will be at the expense of Egypt.

Lyse Doucet:
Well we did in fact receive many callers and e-mails, from the countries who do have to share water along the Nile. Well Boutros Ghali we had people agreeing and disagreeing with you. An e-mail from Asghar Poorbehzadi in Kahnooj in Iran who says: I don't agree with you Mr Boutros Boutros Ghali, I think the war over energy will be the problem in the years to come.

And an e-mail from Shadi Fadda in Beirut in Lebanon, she says that the water conflict is already there between Lebanon and Syria on the one hand and Israel on the other. I think the only way to solve such problems, according to Shadi, is through a balance of power in the region. Well let's take our first caller, we're going to go to your native country, to Egypt, to Cairo, one of your favourite cities, Asmaa Shalabi is on the line, Asmaa what question would you like to put to Boutros Boutros Ghali?

Asmaa Shalabi:
I come from the point of view that recently it's been said that countries - third world countries - with resources are more prone to conflict. I'm looking at it with a reverse psychology point of view and trying to see this as a starting point for cooperation and communication and maybe solving more problems. I wonder what the likelihood of that is, if you could tell me?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
I agree that the problem of water among countries who share the same rivers will be through a cross border cooperation and only through a cross border cooperation will we be able to avoid the possibility of confrontation, of military confrontation or even dispute concerning the distribution of water belonging to the same basin. This is true for the Nile, this is true for the rivers of Iraq and Syria and Turkey, this is true in the problem of water inside Israel, this is true with the problem of water between Lebanon and Israel.

So the problem is that you have to sit around the table to find a compromise, to create an institution which will supervise the distribution of water. Again we have to agree on what criterion this water will be distributed to the different countries. So the problem is we must pay attention from now and not postpone the solution of those disputes, from now we must find a solution. After all in Asia they have been able to find an organisation which is the Mekon River Organisation. In Europe they have been able to have a common organisation for the Danube. So there is no reason why we in the countries of the third world we will not be able to agree on an organisation which will be based on a cross border cooperation.

Lyse Doucet:
Asmaa Shalabi it seems as though it's a political problem, do you agree with Boutros Ghali, do you think your political leaders can do that?

Asmaa Shalabi:
Well I don't see any reason why they shouldn't but so far I can only observe that they haven't and I wonder we've failed.

Dr Boutros Ghali:
I agree that there is not enough comprehension because this is a problem which is not the problem of today and the leaders of the different regions, as any political leader, is coping with the problems of today and they are not ready to pay attention to the problems of tomorrow. But I believe that a real leader must pay attention to the problem of tomorrow and the problem of tomorrow are problems of water.

Lyse Doucet:
Indeed. Asmaa Shalabi thank you for taking time to call us from Cairo. We had some e-mails from people in countries along the Nile. From Ahmed, who's from the College Station in the United States says: What do you think the chances are of a nation like Ethiopia or an autonomous southern Sudanese region cutting off Nile water to the north? Is Egypt willing to use force to resolve the situation?

And from A.S. in Cairo he says: As an Egyptian I worry that one day one of the countries along the Nile may decide to block our access to water. Are we prepared to go to war over this? So interestingly these two, in fact more of the e-mails, they're thinking the only way to resolve this is the possible use of force.

Dr Boutros Ghali:
Now let us have a more optimistic approach. I don't believe that any country will dare to cut the water because the water of the Nile, water from Egypt, is essential. The national security of Egypt is based on water, on the sources of the Nile. So I don't believe that this will happen. But the reason is that this is why we must pay attention from now to have a common organisation. And may I mention that there is a different organisation which has been created.

When I was minister of state for foreign affairs I created in 1983 the global group Save the Dam - for the Nile basin - integrated a independent commission which was created in 1990-96 - the technical cooperation commission for the promotion and the development of the Nile which was created in 1992. The Nile Basin initiative created in 1998 and it is financed by the World Bank. So I want to say that there is an awareness today that it is important to find a solution to the problem of the Nile Basin and the distribution of water in the Nile Basin.

Lyse Doucet:
Good, while we have a number of people who want to ask you about Egypt's point of view. On the line now from the Netherlands is Asnake Kefale, Asnake what would you like to ask Boutros Ghali.

Asnake Kefale:
Well what I want to ask is the role of Egypt? First to give a perspective to my question to the former Secretary General, my view about Egypt concerning cooperation on the Nile is very much I think they're guilty from a total perspective because in 1979 Egypt and Sudan signed a treaty which apportioned the water between themselves without the consent of the other downstream countries and the role of Egypt in all of Africa has generally a policy of destabilisation. The status quo is not to the benefit of the countries of Ethiopia and others.

The way Egypt uses the water is sometimes not sustainable. For example, the diversion of the water to the desert - is not even environmentally sound. And we'd rather the situation like in 1979 President Sadat said Egypt next time goes to war to protect this water. In 1985 you did state the next war in the region will be for water, these types of attestations for us are like - we consider them like a threat because Ethiopia is not allowed to use the waters of the Nile despite a series of droughts and famines. Ethiopia is not in a position to gain financial assistance from institutions like the World Bank because of Egypt.

Lyse Doucet:
Let's hear the answer now.

Dr Boutros Ghali:
No you see the problem is when you have a dispute you have certain incomprehension coming from both sides. On the Egyptian side there is an obsession on water security because there is no rain. In the case of the Sudan, in the case of Ethiopia, in the case of Uganda, in the case of Tanzania there is a difference between the main agriculture is based on the rain. So already they have less problem of water in those countries.

But I say that the simplest way to solve this problem is to create an institution which is already there trying to do this, is to create an international organisation which will take care about those problems and will solve those problems peacefully - through arbitration and through certain rules. It means the distribution of water must be based on different criterion. A country which has rain, which can use rain in its own agriculture then they must receive a quantity of water which is less than the quantity of water given to a country which has no rain at all.

Lyse Doucet:
It all sounds very rational and very conciliatory Boutros Ghali. Thank you very much Asnake for calling us. And I have to say Boutros Ghali that there are a number of Ethiopians who don't seem to have a very positive view of Egypt's generosity. Tafere Hailemariam who now lives in the United States e-mailed us to say: What is your opinion of Egypt's use of the Nile which ignores the growing needs of Ethiopia which is a major source of the Nile but which, year after year, faces the threat of starvation? Of course there are nine countries which are sharing the Nile water, so let's go from the concerns from Ethiopia to the concerns of Sudan. On the line from Kenana is Omer Elfarouk Mirghani, Omer welcome to Talking Point, what would you like to put to the former Secretary General?

Omer Elfarouk Mirghani:
Good afternoon. The Jonglei Canal project has created a forum on many experts citing its adverse effect to the environment and the consequences. With the prospect of peace settlement in the southern Sudan, do you think there is resumption of the canal works is viable?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
Look the Jonglei Canal began in 1979 and it stopped in 1983. It is a canal which is of 360 kilometres between Bor and Malakal and what is important that this canal will give us five billion cubic metres per year - those five billion cubic metres will be shared between Egypt and the Sudan. This is the first element. So the Jonglei Canal will stop the cause of the civil war in the south of the Sudan. But the Jonglei Canal represents such a contribution to more quantities of water for agriculture both to the Sudan and both to Egypt. So unfortunately the civil war helped stop the construction of the canal and because as you know there is a quantity of water which is evaporated by the swamps in this region so we lost more than five billion - during the last 20 years - we lost more than a hundred billion cubic metres of water due to the civil war in the south of the Sudan.

Lyse Doucet:
Let's bring it back from these 100 billion cubic units of water - Omer you live in Kenana in Sudan, a country affected by water shortages, how do you feel water shortages and the lack of cooperation in terms of the Nile in your own life?

Omer Elfarouk Mirghani:
Yes for our country we think that in some parts we have the same conditions as that prevailing in Egypt. Sudan is a very huge country - very large - you see in some places it's very similar as in Kenya - no need for the water of the Nile. But other places here are very arid, the same as in Egypt. So we have the same results in the parts of these countries - in Uganda and in Egypt. But going back to my question to Dr Ghali if you please - there is - I guess my question is about the environmental consequences of the canal itself because at the initial stage in 1979, as Dr Ghali said, some environmental institutions raised their voice against the canal, just for environmental reasons. Now there is a peace settlement in the future, very near future, that may be in August, may be there is a settlement in the southern part of Sudan and the obstacle will be removed. So the resumption of the work can be done. My question to Dr Ghali do you think that it is possible now after more than 20 years of this work - is it viable to resume this work?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
Yes, yes certainly, certainly it is - we would say it is necessary because two thirds of the canal has been already achieved, we still need one third. So in the next two or three years the canal will be finished and this will represent not only a route of communication between the north and the south of the Sudan between Bor and Malakal because we will have a road on both sides of the canal but in the same times it will give us an additional quantity of water. Furthermore I don't believe - I don't agree that this will present a real danger for the environmental situation in this region, on the contrary all the studies have proved that it is something very positive and very constructive, it will contribute to the modernisation of the Sudan and the south of the Sudan.

Lyse Doucet:
Good, Omer Elfarouk Mirghani thank you very much for joining us from Kenana in Sudan. We're going to move now to the other side of the world and John Mesrobian is on the line from the United States in Williamsburg. John what's your question for Boutros Ghali?

John Mesrobian:
Good afternoon Dr Ghali. My question is regards to potential conflict between Turkey and Syria and dragging in other countries in the conflict. Turkey is building various dams and do you see potential conflict? There's been rumblings in the past and that has gone silent but that issue can come up again.

Dr Boutros Ghali:
You see the problem of Syria that 80% of the water of Syria is based on the river coming from Turkey, they have not enough water. In the case of Egypt it is 100%, in the case of Syria it is 80%. So the only solution is again to negotiate between Syria and Iraq and Turkey so to have a redistribution of water to have common projects, as long as the project, based on any river, is done a bilateral basis or on a unilateral basis this cannot take into consideration the interest of all the owners of the river. So for the future I believe it is important, as in the Nekon River in Asia or as in the Danube in Europe, they have an international organisation dealing with the navigation of the river, dealing with the distribution of water, dealing with electricity which can be obtained through the different dams which are constructed and could be shared by the countries through a cross border system.

The only way is to sit around the table, to have an international conference to discuss and this, by the way, is the best way to obtain the financial support from the international bank or from the international community because all those countries have not the financial capacity to build these dams, to build those constructions, which will give additional quantities of water. But there is another element which is very important - this can produce electricity and electricity is a clean energy and electricity through semi-conductors could be exported to the European community to the European Union which will represent an income for those countries.

Lyse Doucet:
John Mesrobian I hope the former Secretary General has answered your question, thank you for calling us from the United States. We've been talking about Turkey, let's take a call from Turkey, Diane Horsley is on the line from Ankara, Diane what point would you like to make?

Diane Horsley:
The question I've got is over the building of dams, both in Turkey and countries like India and the other third world countries. I'd like to know why the UN supports the building of dam projects or the financing by the World Bank of dam projects in these countries when there are other traditional methods of irrigation and water conservation which have proven much more effective than dam building? And in addition to that the World Bank doesn't seem to provide any support for these countries in terms of preventing water pollution. In Turkey it's been announced that within about 15 or 20 years almost all of the groundwater sources are going to be polluted.

Dr Boutros Ghali:
I agree with you that this is a problem but I want to say that the new technology, which is drip irrigation, will represent a contribution to the water system but the only real contribution dealing with certain rivers is the construction of high dams. But drip irrigation could help but it will not solve the problem. And secondly drip irrigation is a very costly operation and it will need a special education. I am in favour of drip irrigation and new technology in irrigation in new technology using in the desert to use the minimum of quantity of water - this will help but the real solution concerning certain international rivers are construction of dams.

Lyse Doucet:
Diane Horsley, thank you for taking time for us on the line from Turkey. A number of people have also e-mailed us about the question of what's the best way to go about fulfilling our needs for water and you mentioned drip irrigation, we had an e-mail from Jagmohan in Ghaziabad in India who says: How can the world reconcile the need to grow more food with the need to use less water? Most poor farmers can't afford methods such as drip irrigation. Well we're joined now by Ravi Narayanan who is the director of WaterAid, he's on the line from London. Ravi you've been listening to this discussion about whether dams are the best thing, whether there are other technologies that can be used, what would you like to say about that?

Ravi Narayanan:
I think there's no one answer to the problems of water supply. Water storage is extremely important, particularly in areas of erratic rainfall. So the need to have some sort of water storage capacity is a case that can't be denied, the case can't be denied for structures that control water. Of course traditional methods are extremely important and it is true that sometimes these have been neglected because people think the dams are the only answer. They're not the only answer but on the other hand the needs for water are growing with irrigation, with domestic demand and with the needs of industry. So in order to be able to cope with the demands of water from all three sources it's important to have some sort of system which will use not only traditional methods, such as rain harvesting, such as traditional methods of storing but subject to the proviso that the social and economic costs are properly understood there is a case for a very cautious approach to dams as well.

Lyse Doucete:
Now Ravi most of our discussion so far has focused on the need for better cooperation between regions who are sharing key rivers, for example the nine countries along the Nile. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali has made a plea for these countries to work together, is it simply though a question of just sharing what's available or do we need a totally new approach to water, given that there may simply not be enough to go around?

Ravi Narayanan:
Yes I certainly think there needs to be first of all the realisation seems to be growing at last that water is a finite resource but the needs and the demands for water are growing at a rate that is going to outstrip the supply of water in the next few years. That's a start. Having made that - having realised that it's important for countries to be able to make sure that there is enough investment in the national plan and for donors to make sure that there is enough attention given to aid for water supply schemes to be able to answer this problem.

But having said that the points that have been made - the need for cooperation for countries sharing a river basin is of course absolutely true, it's not just countries sharing a river basin, it's the need for the different users of water - the industrial sector, the agricultural sector and the domestic sector - where a balance has to be struck and this is why it's extremely important for every country to have a national plan for the rational and optimal use of water.

Lyse Doucet:
Now we've heard from Boutros Ghali something must be done now, Boutros Ghali would you like to respond?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
No I just completely agree and I completely agree that what is important is to create an awareness, a national awareness on the importance of water, a national awareness to see that a plan must be done and that the problem is not only to build the dam in the case of rivers but how to distribute the water between urbanisation, between agriculture, between industrialisation. You will know that you have certain plantations who need more water than others, so maybe it would be better to have agriculture which use less quantity of water. So not only do we need a regional plan but we need - as it was mentioned now - national plan in each country to be aware of the importance of water and to be aware of the distribution of water between the different sections of the population.

Lyse Doucet:
Well these are certainly concerns that people have been raising in different ways in all of the e-mails and telephone calls that we've received. They're still coming in. Well our next caller is in Warwick in the United Kingdom, Arvinn Eikeland Gadgil is on the line, welcome to Talking Point what is your point?

Arvinn Eikeland Gadgil:
Thank you very much. I'm aware of the increasing role of private enterprise in water distribution and yet it seems like the World Bank has put a lot of emphasis on pushing forward these profit seeking private enterprises in this distribution. Does it worry you that we are moving closer and closer to a time where water is distributed, not according to needs but according to means? And I was also wondering if you could answer that question with a particular reference to the Middle East and North Africa region.

Boutros Ghali:
I'm not sure that I understand your question but the problem is I am worried that the private enterprise will take care about the problem of water. I believe that if this is the question - my question is that after all water is such an important problem that it must have a kind of supervision of the national governments because water is not like an industry dealing with cars or an industry dealing with - even with agriculture, this is something essential.

And the different international conferences which have adopted during the last 10 or 20 years have made of water a kind of human rights. Each man has the right to have clean water and this is why the United Nations have adopted this year the Year of Water. So I believe that water is such an important element that it must have a supervision of the government and this is why you will have a very strong opposition in certain countries when they have decided in the city that the distribution of water will be given to a private corporation or to a private institution because the price will be different than the price of water distributed by the government.

Lyse Doucet:
But the World Bank, is saying that 75% of the water programme should come from private sources, if private sources is the only way to provide clean water should we say that the priority has to be getting the water, regardless of where it comes from?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
Yes certainly if what is important is to have water and that the water will reach the people, this is important.

Lyse Doucet:
Arvinn thank you very much for joining us on the line here in the United Kingdom. Well a number of countries are actually considering whether or not after providing a certain minimum amount of water to their people whether then there should be a fee levied to give them even more. Let's go to South Africa no where we're joined by Ronnie Kasrils who is the water minister and he's on the line from Cape Town. Welcome to Talking Point Ronnie Kasrils, tell us first about just how serious is the problem of water in your country, we hear about all the other problems that South Africa is dealing with but is water also a priority for you?

Ronnie Kasrils:
Certainly, South Africa is a water stressed country. Rainfall in South Africa is below the world average. We also have fluctuations in rainfall - drought periods followed by floods. I think the point that Mr Boutros Ghali was making about the need for dams certainly has applied here where we really need to store water during periods of real need but to do so in terms of sensitivity to the environment.

The question that we're dealing with of course follows the apartheid period where the majority of black people in our country were not served, basic services were non existent, the rural people had to fend for themselves and search for water in increasingly polluted sources. So we've had a major thrust from 1994 - the year of our first democratic election - to ensure that we serve all our people with water and that's clean water. We're way ahead of the Millennium Development Goals and in the year 2008 all the people in South Africa will be receiving clean water and we also enshrine the right to water in our constitution and we have a policy of ensuring that there's a minimum amount of water, basic amount of water.

Lyse Doucet:
That all sounds very good Ronnie Kasrils although we do hear reports in South Africa that people don't actually have much access to it or either have to go very long ways to get it. Let me put to you an e-mail that we received from a gentleman in Ghana, Julius Patamia who says: Why does the UN appear to be unconcerned that the World Bank coerces poor countries like Ghana to privatise their water resources? Is that something you are doing either because the international community is pressuring you or you believe as a government that you should do it, that some people will have to pay for their water?

Ronnie Kasrils:
No we don't privatise our water at all. And I believe that the World Bank is beginning to show sensitivity to our argument, which we started several years ago and made warnings that they should not insist on investment that requires that water must be privatised. We do keep the option open for our municipalities but only 2% of our municipalities have an agreement with a private sector company. So the other 98% is purely state public partnership approach.

Lyse Doucet:
Now do you believe that the international community and development agencies are paying enough attention to the need for water and the possible crisis? We had an e-mail from Raj Prayag who sent it from Port Louis in Mauritius, he says: The G8, the industrialised nations who met last week, didn't even bother to discuss the African's dire need for water. Who should we turn to for assistance? Please stop all these empty talks about Africa's needs if nothing will be done. Do you share that sentiment?

Ronnie Kasrils:
Well I would say that there's certainly internationally now from the United Nations, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, all the conferences an awareness that there is this dire need for water and that the developing countries must be greatly assisted. The water issue was taken up at the G8 meeting and of course there have been numerous statements from the Jo'burg Summit right through to the G8 Monterrey and all these meetings where the richer - the developed countries have made commitments. But we still see these as only commitments, we're waiting to see this really put into action. So from that point of view the rich countries have to really show that they understand the need for crisis factor and that they've got to put their money, their resources, their investment where their mouths are.

Lyse Doucet:
Ronnie Kasrils thank you for your warning from Cape Town. Boutros Ghali you've been listening to that, you had a long service in the United Nations, people have to put their money where their mouths are he says.

Dr Boutros Ghali:
May I mention a very simple idea? By obtaining the electrification of the different dams on the different rivers in Africa, Africa will be able to export the electricity to Europe. Another way the construction of, let us say, a huge Mashall Plan in Africa for the electrification of the continent based on using the water which exists in Central Africa, which is very important, this will be something important because Africa will be able to export through the semiconductor and through the new technique electricity to Europe.

So here we have a very important element where it will be in the interests of the rich countries of the north to invest in a huge programme of electrification of Africa based on the construction of different dams and at the same time the construction of those differing dams will help to solve the problem of water. So if we combine the problem of water with the problem of energy, which is electric energy, which is a clean energy, we will be able to find the solution which is to obtain a better cooperation between the north and the south.

Lyse Doucet:
A very practical suggestion Dr Boutros Ghali. Thank you to Ronnie Kasrils who was joining us from South Africa, South Africa's minister for water. We're going to stay in Africa and take another caller on the line from Malawi, Rafiq Hajat is joining us. Rafiq what question would you like to ask Boutros Ghali?

Rafiq Hajat:
Basically I feel that water is a prerequisite to life, is a second generation right and as such it is too important to be placed in the hands that are subject to nationalistic tendencies. Therefore it needs a global system of management that would link the supply of water, enhance access and at the same time provide vital developmental assistance to third world countries that may have a surplus of this precious resource.

Lyse Doucet:
What do you think?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
I have no objection, on the contrary I have no objection as long as this will be done on a regional basis and it will be done with the agreement of the different governments because it is dealing with the sovereignty of the different governments and maybe it's through this kind of regional organisation taking care about the distribution of water we may obtain the support of the donor countries. So I completely agree that water is a prerequisite to life and it is important to obtain the attention of the international community to cooperate in huge programmes - a huge programme to obtain clean water in the different parts of Africa.

Lyse Doucet:
Rafiq do you feel the shortage of water in your daily life in Malawi because it's an area that's been drought prone?

Rafiq Hajat:
Well over here we have suffered pretty badly recently. However, I would like to commend the World Bank. I know they've been blasted left, right and centre but the World Bank in Malawi, through the Malawi social action fund, has invested very heavily in the drilling of bore holes to provide clean potable water to rural communities. And I think to date over 3,000 bore holes have been drilled and I think that is a commendable effort. And the second aspect is the emphasis now on treadle pumps which draws water from rivers for irrigation and obviating the need for massive dams that have various environmental repercussions and long-term detrimental effects.

Lyse Doucet:
Rafiq Hajat thank you for joining us with some positive news from Malawi. Well many of you have e-mailed us with your questions about how clean drinking water can be provided to people, especially those who live in the poorest countries. We had a question from Erik Ollson, he's the director of the Drinking Water Programme from the National Resources Defence Council in Washington.

Erik Ollson:
My question is as you know there are millions of children who die every year across the globe from contaminated tap water, in fact more people die from bad tap water than die from all wars combined. And my question is: how are we going to get the 10 countries that have the bulk of the problem, in fact two thirds of the problem are in just 10 countries, how are we going to get those developing countries to focus on the problem and to ask for the aid that they need in order to address this calamity?

Lyse Doucet:
Boutros Ghali how are we going to get those countries to address this issue?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
I believe that we will need the cooperation between the different international organisations and those countries. After all I remember I gave a lecture in 1989 at the American Congress, to create an awareness about the problem of water in the poor countries. So here again it is a question of cooperation between the north and the south because the poor countries may have the awareness of the problem of water but will have not the capacity first of all to cooperate among themselves, they will need a kind of mediator who plays the role of catalyst while they're discussing the problem and they will need a real assistance coming from the different international financial organisations. So the countries of the north - the United States, European community - can play a role by offering specific assistance to this problem.

Lyse Doucet:
Ravi Narayanan let's bring you in here, he's the director of WaterAid, this is something you worry about a lot - cooperation between the richer countries and the poor about the need to preserve and to get more sources of water. Is that happening do you feel?

Ravi Narayanan:
Well let me just go back to the question that was just asked about the quality of water. One of the things that people are constantly talking about are - they talk about drinking water as if that is the only health hazard. Actually the lack of safe drinking water - it's the safe handling of water that is equally important. And I think it's going to be increasingly important for us to discuss water together with hygiene education - the handling of water so that it remains safe after it's extracted from whatever source - whether it's a hand pump or a tap. So I think it's going to be important - whether it's international agencies or NGOs or governments themselves to pay enough attention to the aspect of hygiene education when we talk about public provision of water.

Now coming back to the issue of investment in water, there was an earlier question about private sector participation and I think Mr Kasrils answer was right on the spot, there should be no automatic conditionality to say that private sector participation is the only route to the provision of clean water. There are over a billion people - 1.2 billion people - in the world without access to any kind of safe water. The majority of them live in countries where the large private sector operators have no commercial interest currently and it's unlikely that they're going to do so in the next few years. And for these countries it's extremely important that their national governments put aside a sufficient proportion of their national budgets to be able to address the problem of water which cuts across all sorts of other sectors as well because this is a major public health issue and so when they come to do their sums on how much is to be allocated to water it would be just as well if they consider the consequences of not having clean water - the burden of disease - and the effects that it has, the negative effects that it has on the public health system.

Lyse Doucet:
And on the last point cooperation between north and south?

avi Narayanan:
Absolutely essential and I think for the north, for the richer countries, the G8 and the other donor countries it's extremely important for them to realise that if they are serious about commitment to the Millennium Development Goals which is reducing the proportion of people without access to safe water by half then they need to make sure that the aid budgets are configured in that particular way and put aside a sufficient proportion of funds to be able to make this provision possible.

Lyse Doucet:
Good, well let's take another caller, this one is on the line from Melbourne in Australia, Edward Krzywdzinski joins us, Edward what's your question?

Edward Krzywdzinski:
Good afternoon Lyse, good afternoon Dr Boutros Ghali. The one thing that I haven't really heard about today is a fundamental point which underpins all this and that a higher demand for water raises consumption and places greater pressure on the global water resources. But what consideration is given to the implications of an expanding population? I mean we talk about it but what seriously is being done about this? And it's an issue that's not only relevant to developing countries but to the developed world also - we simply can't continue to increase the population unchecked without serious repercussions. And inevitably the developing world will want to manage the consumption and waste of water as presently exists in the West. So to that point the efficient water distribution and usage - the greatest waste comes from the agriculture and manufacturing sectors where fresh portable water is used, contaminated, released back into the system and we're polluting the freshwater sources and reserves at an unprecedented rate and water to most people seems to be something that either falls from the sky or can just be taken at will from lakes and rivers and we should be concentrating, along with populations….

Lyse Doucet:
So a broader approach to the whole question of water - taking in population as well as pollution - Boutros Ghali?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
The problem of the population explosion is a different problem and I completely agree that the problem of the demographic explosion is related to the problem of water. Just to return back to the problem of the Nile, the problem of the Nile will be the next dispute on the water of the Nile will be because of the demographic explosion in Ethiopia and in the Sudan where they will need more water and when they will need to use agriculture through irrigation. So I completely agree that one of the problems of water is related to the demographic explosion.

Now the demographic problem has been that certain countries have been successful in controlling the demographic explosion, other countries have not been successful. But the projections which are there it means with the control and with all the effort which has been done to control the demographic explosion the projections show that you will have a population increase of 3% which is a very high demographic increase of the population.

Lyse Doucet:
Well Mr Boutros Ghali given now this multifaceted nature of the problem, Sir, and the need for a global approach we had a text message from a man named Wisdom in Lagos, Nigeria and said: Can the United Nations evolve a global approach to the water issues similar to the one adopted towards the Aids crisis? Should the UN really put it at the top of the agenda in that kind of a multifaceted way that we've just been talking about?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
I am not so sure about the global approach to the problem could be done, I would prefer a regional approach. Just to take different regions of the world and to have regional or continental approach rather than a global approach. Now this could be done through a new international organisation but for the time being we have the crisis of the different international organisations, so we have to wait until we will be able to overcome this crisis of confidence towards the United Nations, a crisis of confidence toward the European Union, and the organisation of African unity. So I believe what is important is to overcome this crisis and the fact that certain international organisations have not been able to solve certain political problems doesn't mean that they are not important in the feeling that economic cooperation in the field of social problems, in the field of water, in the field of environment .

Lyse Doucet:
You were once at the helm of a major international organisation, Moncef Bichara in Morocco asks you: What were the main steps taken by the UN during your tenure as Secretary General to provide clean water to the poorest nations in Africa? You obviously believe it's a priority, what were you able and willing to do when you were at the head?

Dr Boutros Ghali:
We have been able to have a group of international conferences and among them which was the first conference which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 is the problem of environments and the problem of environments is related to the problem of water. Since then you have many international meetings and the international bank have played also a role in trying to promote an awareness about the importance of the problem of water. But again you see the real problem is that you have so many international problems that unless special attention is given to the problems of water the problems of disease, the problems of terrorism will prevail and the different governments and the different international organisations will pay more attention to terrorism or to drugs traffic than to the problem of water or to the problem of environments.

Lyse Doucet:
Dr Boutros Ghali the world is indeed confronted with many, many problems and you've done a very good job today of telling us that you believe that water is one that should be put at the top of the agenda. Well I'm afraid that is all the time we have for today. Our special thanks to Boutros Boutros Ghali for being our guest and of course to all of you who've taken part in the programme. Sorry we couldn't take everyone who called us and we tried to read as many e-mails as we could but don't forget you can still contribute to the water debate by visiting our website at bbcnews.com/talkingpoint and there you can find out lots more about water and take part in our online voting. I'm Lyse Doucet, from me and the rest of the Talking Point team, goodbye for now.

End