CANCELLATION OF BOGUS LAND DEALS IN INDIA

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:

The Cabinet on Wednesday (13th November 2008) approved a proposal for amending the Registration Act to empower the government to cancel transfer of land done using bogus documents and deeds

Briefing presspersons on the Cabinet decisions, Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan said the proposed amendment would make registration of sale deeds mandatory. Further, the government would specify that government and quasi- government institutions should transfer their land only on receipt of a no-objection certificate from a designated officer.

The Chief Minister said the Cabinet had approved the guidelines for implementation of the EMS Housing Scheme. Local self-government institutions should set apart 15 per cent of their annual Plan allocations for the scheme. All eligible persons should be given housing loans before 2010. Cooperative banks would extent loans.

The interest rate would be 10 per cent a year. The plan was to ensure housing for all homeless families. The coverage of the scheme would be over and above existing schemes.

WHY ARE THE JEWS SO POWERFUL

By: Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist

Why are Jews so powerful?

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas, five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa.

For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Ever wondered why?

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish. Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew. Sigmund Freud -- id, ego, and superego -- the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew. So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has enriched the whole humanity: Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine. Alert Sab in developed the improved live polio vaccine. Gertrude Elion gave us a leukaemia fighting drug. Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B. Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease).

Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.

Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission.

Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism)...

Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias).

Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill. George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye.

Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development). Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.

Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 15-dozen Nobel Prizes while only three Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims (other than Peace Prizes).

Why are Jews so powerful? Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip. Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor. Peter Schultz, optical fibre cable; Charles Adler, traffic lights; Benno Strauss, Stainless steel; Isador Kisee, sound movies; Emile Berliner, telephone microphone and Charles Ginsburg, videotape recorder.

Famous financiers in the business world who belong to Jewish faith include Ralph Lauren (Polo), Levis Strauss (Levi's Jeans), Howard Schultz (Starbuck's), Sergey Brin (Google), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Donna Karan (DKNY), Irv Robbins (Baskin & Robbins) and Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).

Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew. So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Alan Greenspan (fed chairman under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush), Joseph Lieberman, Madeleine Albright (American secretary of state), Maxim Litvinov (USSR foreign Minister), David Marshal (Singapore's first chief minister), Isaac Isaacs (governor-general of Australia), Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian PM), Jorge Sampaio (president of Portugal), Herb Gray (Canadian deputy PM), Pierre Mendes (French PM), Michael Howard (British home secretary), Bruno Kreisky (chancellor of Austria) and Robert Rubin (former American secretary of treasury).

In the media, famous Jews include Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Barbara Walters (ABC News), Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Henry Grunwald (editor-in-chief Time), Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post), Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive editor, The New York Times), and Max Frankel (New York Times).

Can you name the most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world? The name is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world. Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.

At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by winning seven gold medals. Lenny Krayzelburg is a three- time Olympic gold medallist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker are all Jewish.

Did you know that Harrison Ford, George Burns, Tony Curtis, Charles Bronson, Sandra Bullock, Billy Crystal, Woody Allen, Paul Newman, Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Ben Kingsley, Kirk Douglas, William Shatner, Jerry Lewis and Peter Falk are all Jewish?

As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers, Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, Oliver Stone, Aaron Spelling (Beverly Hills 90210), Neil Simon (The Odd Couple), Andrew Vaina (Rambo 1/2/3), Michael Man (Starsky and Hutch), Milos Forman (One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest), Douglas Fairbanks (The thief of Baghdad) and Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.

To be certain, Washington is the capital that matters and in Washington the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Washington knows that if PM Ehud Olmert were to discover that the earth is flat, AIPAC will make the 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his discovery.

William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?

So, why are Jews so powerful?

Answer: Education.

Why are Muslims so powerless?

There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas. Every fifth human being is a Muslim; for every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.

Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?

Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims. The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407. In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities', and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.

As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian- majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent. A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent. Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.

Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literate s' in the Muslim world did the same.

Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.

In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).

Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.

Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.

Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.

In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360.

In the UK, the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.

Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application. Pakistan's exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent.

The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 per cent; Kuwait, Morocco, and Algeria are all at 0.3 per cent while Singapore is at 58 per cent.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?

Because we aren't producing knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?

Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?

Because we aren't applying knowledge.

And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.

Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion.

America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion; China $8 trillion, Japan $3.8 trillion and Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).

Oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion;

Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion,

Catholic Poland $489 billion and Buddhist Thailand $545 billion.

(Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining).

So, why are Muslims so powerless?

Answer: Lack of education!

All we do is shout to Allah whole day and blame everyone else for our multiple failures..!....

4 MILLION CANADIANS IN NEED OF HOUSING

With 4 million Canadians in need of housing and 40,000 sleeping in shelters every night, Canada's affordable housing shortage is not a problem that is too big to fix; it's a problem that is to big not to fix, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada said today.

Speaking at a meeting with provincial and territorial housing ministers, the Federation of Canadian municipalities, and other national housing organizations, Nicholas Gazzard, Executive Director, made a case for co-operative housing as part of the solution.

"Co-op housing in Canada is a success story. Co-op housing iscost-effective for government and offers a truly community-driven housingsolution that puts the residents in control of their housing."

CHF Canada recognized the importance of the renewal of the three federalhousing programs just prior to the call of the federal election and called onthe provinces and territories to make a matching commitment. But Gazzard called for a long term strategy."

The renewed federal spending, while welcome, will not deliver the newaffordable housing needed to address the challenges of core housing need.

The federal government must commit to further funding and develop a strategy to respond to the expiry of existing federal housing commitments.

Canadian housing co-ops are also calling for

- A strategic partnership among different levels of government- Consultation with stakeholder groups

- New spending tied to both supply and demand solutions, and

- Efficiency in scale in program design.

CHF Canada is the national voice of co-operative housing in Canada, with more than 900 housing co-operatives and other members, representing 56,000

The Role of Tourism as one of the Principal Sectors of the International Co-operative Movement

By PARAMASVARAN S. Kandiah

President, The International Cooperative Housing Foundation for Asia & the Pacific, New Delhi, India

Past President, The Cooperative Union of Malaysia Limited, Kuala Lumpur

Chairman, The National Railway Cooperatives Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

Vice Chairman, International Cooperative Alliance (TICA), Tourism Committee/Networking, Geneva

Presented at

The INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS CONFERENCE ON COOPERATIVE TOURISM – JAIPUR , INDIA ON 14TH & 15TH OCTOBER 2008

It is a truism that Tourism and the urge to travel have now become the world’s largest industry and the creator of jobs across national and regional economies. It is forecast that Travel & Tourism will generate, directly and indirectly, 11.7% of GDP and nearly 260 million jobs in the world-wide economy by the Year 2020. Tourism has now been acknowledged as one of the important Sectoral Organisations of the International Cooperative Alliance. Tourism unfortunately thus far has not played a dominant role in the overall economic and social development of the Cooperative Movement since the inception of Cooperatives more than a century ago.

Somehow Tourism was left to the sidelines by the Cooperative Movement for such a long stretch of time.

Steps now being taken in various forms to stimulate the Tourism Sector of the Cooperative Movement through the aegis of TICA ( ICA Tourism Networking) and the untiring efforts of persons like Dr Maurizio Davolio, Chairman of TICA Networking need to be lauded

Jobs generated by Travel & Tourism are spread across the economy - in retail, construction, hospitality, medical, ecology, handicrafts’ manufacturing and telecommunications, as well as directly in Travel & Tourism companies. These jobs which employ a large proportion of women, minorities and young people; are predominantly in small and medium sized companies; and offer good training and transferability.

Tourism can also be one of the most effective drivers for the development of regional economies.

These patterns apply to both developed and emerging economies.

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Rio Earth Summit have identified Travel & Tourism as one of the key sectors of the economy which could make a positive contribution to achieving sustainable development. The Earth Summit lead to the adoption of Agenda 21, a comprehensive program of action adopted by 182 governments to provide a global blueprint for achieving sustainable development.

Travel & Tourism is able to contribute to development which is economically, ecologically and socially sustainable, because it:

· has less impact on natural resources and the environment than most other industries;

· is based on enjoyment and appreciation of local culture, built heritage, and natural environment, as such that the industry has a direct and powerful motivation to protect these assets;

· can play a positive part in increasing consumer commitment to sustainable development principles through its unparalleled consumer distribution channels; and

· provides an economic incentive to conserve natural environments and habitats which might otherwise be allocated to more environmentally damaging land uses, thereby, helping to maintain bio-diversity.

There are numerous good examples of where Tourism is acting as a catalyst for conservation and improvement of the environment and maintenance of local diversity and culture

To a greater degree than most activities, Travel & Tourism depends on a wide range of infrastructure services - airports, air navigation, roads, railheads and ports, as well as basic infrastructure services required by hotels, restaurants, shops, and recreation facilities (e.g. telecommunications and utilities).

It is the combination of tourism and good infrastructure that underpins the economic, environmental and social benefits.

Travel & Tourism creates jobs and wealth and has tremendous potential to contribute to economically, environmentally and socially sustainable development in both developed countries and emerging nations. It is an ideal industry for small scale Co-operatives because it has a comparative advantage in that its start up and running costs can be low compared to many other forms of industry development.

Travel & Tourism take many different forms - from a trip only a few hours away from home to long distance travel overseas. A common belief is that most travels involve large numbers of visitors from developed countries travelling by air to destinations in emerging countries.

In fact, in most countries, the domestic tourism market is larger than the inbound market. Of course, the social and cultural impact of inbound visitors is often greater than that of domestic tourists. Whether tourism is domestic or international, it involves visiting a destination away from the area in which one lives and using the services available in that destination.

Therefore, tourists’ requirements are for travel services to reach their destinations and once there, for services such as shelter, water, food, sanitation and entertainment. These are all areas into which small scale Co-operatives can easily venture into.

What makes tourism special is that, many of these different products and services are often supplied by different operators: usually small or medium sized businesses in local ownership and which are most ideal for small scale Co-operative industries. This makes tourism a highly fragmented and diverse industry and as such a co-ordinated, industry-wide action may be difficult to achieve.

Despite the difficulties caused by fragmentation and lengthy supply chains, there has been a steady growth in environmental good practice across the industry in recent years. There are examples of - airlines and airports reducing pollution and noise impacts; cruise liners practising marine conservation; hotels implementing energy consumption and waste disposal programs; car rental companies investing in increasingly fuel efficient fleets and railways sound proofing to dampen noise.

The ICA and its world wide members both at National and sub national levels can become the focus for TICA to become the global leaders’ forum for the Cooperative Tourism industry.

TICA at global, regional and national or grouping of nations level is slowly setting in place an extensive strategy to promote tourism as one of the main sectoral activities of the Co-operative Movement as a whole both in the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ sphere of tourism and travel related activities whilst at the same time giving due regard to a culture of sustainable development. In this regard the Co-operatives could follow the private sector practise of putting into place an appropriate tiered structure for its achievement.

This would involve :

Launching an action plan for Cooperatives to work towards :

“Environmentally Sustainable Development” through a series of Regional, National, Continental and International level seminars to increase awareness of the conclusions, and to adapt the programmes for local implementation.

TICA has to involve itself with the private sector as well and could or may seek affiliation to the International Hotel & Restaurant Association (IH&RA), based in Paris, which represents over 700,000 establishments in more than 150 countries.

Its membership comprises some 50 national and international hotel and restaurant chains, over 110 national hotel and restaurant associations, independent hotel operators and restaurateurs, industry suppliers and 130 hotel schools.

The IH&RA has offices in Asia-Pacific and Latin America. It is also the voice of the world’s hotels and restaurants and plays a global role in representing, protecting, promoting and informing the industry to enable its members to achieve their business objectives.

The International Hotel Environment Initiative (IHEI), based in London, England, is a program of The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum. Founded in 1992 by a consortium of chief executives from 10 multinational hotel groups and IHEI is an educational charity designed to encourage continuous improvement in the environmental performance of the global hotel industry. It does this through:

· raising environmental awareness in the hotel industry by promoting good practice internationally;

· developing hotel-specific guidance, enabling hotels of all sizes to implement environmental programs; and

· multiplying the reach and impact of IHEI by working with partners, including hotel associations, governments, NGOs, tourism bodies and businesses.

The Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, based in Australia, was established in 1997 to enhance the strategic knowledge available to the Travel & Tourism industry through:

· long-term high-quality scientific and technological research which contributes to the development of an internationally competitive tourism industry;

·strengthening the links between research and its commercial and other applications;·promoting co-operative research; and

·stimulating education and training, particularly in graduate programs, through active involvement of researchers from outside the higher education system in educational activities, and of graduate students in major research programs.

The number of initiatives undertaken and being undertaken by individual companies is large.

This Assembly would be proud to know that the Kandalama Hotel of Sri Lanka has been a recipient of the “GREEN GLOBE” award, 3 years in a row, for its commitment to environmental excellence.

The hotel is reputed to have undertaken measures in the following areas to ensure that its operations are more sustainable:

· cultural and social - hotel employment, providing community infrastructure and development;

· natural environment - soil erosion measures and planting forests;

· pollution - sewage, solid waste and noise pollution reduction programs; and

· environmental communication

- construction of an Eco Park where all waste is treated within the park, a dry debris sorting centre, a lecture room to promote environmental awareness and a sustainable development library.

The Cooperative Movement along with the public sectors, particularly national and local government, has an important role to play by setting the agenda and providing the framework in which action should take place. The regulatory environment also plays an important role in creating the conditions suitable for sustainable tourism. Self-regulation involving the agreement and co-operation of industry is always likely to be the most effective solution.

Therefore, the role of Cooperatives and industry organisations in distributing information among their members and encouraging participation is essential.

The major partnerships to be formed are between:

· industry and the public sector - to ensure consistency with the framework;

· industry and the Cooperative Sector - to tap into the enormous resources of expertise and good will that this sector is able to generate; and

· industry and the public - both travellers themselves and the people who live in the places they visit to develop more sustainable forms of tourismA broad based approach is called for - which requires Travel related Cooperatives to work with:

· national governments to raise the profile of environmental and social issues within the education system;

· NGOs to raise awareness of tourism issues in their work and activities and provide feedback to the Travel & Tourism industry;

· development organisations to communicate with host communities to understand their needs and requirements;

· local authorities to engage local people through the inclusion of tourism issues;

· national and international trade associations, labour representative organisations and training providers to increase awareness and training of staff in environmental and social issues;

· Publications (such as travel guides);

· Journalists to raise the profile of reporting environmental and social impacts of tourism among consumers and tourism businesses; and

· the Internet as a source of information for potential travellers.

The Cooperative Movement has a solemn duty and a vested interest in protecting the natural and cultural resources that are the core of its tourism business.

There are examples, however, from around the world where the impact of Tourism has been damaging to the local environment and people. Some of the factors which contributes to the harmful impact of tourism which can be addressed by Co-operators are:

· a lack of awareness on the part of those making decisions about tourism development of the social, economic and environmental balance to be pursued in achieving sustainable development;

· a lack of commitment by tourism operators and travellers to contribute to the maintenance of the local environment and culture of the host destination;

· a weak institutional framework with inadequate controls can lead to tourism development which is both inappropriate and intrusive;

· unfairly traded tourism, whereby local communities are unable to share in its benefits;

· large flows of visitors in remote or sensitive locations can place considerable strains on local resources (particularly water) and supply systems. Travellers’ expectations of the goods and services, which should be available, can lead to these items or services, being imported from outside or local supply chains, being distorted to meet demands; and

· tourism can change a destination’s cultural make-up and, if poorly developed, can increase crime, prostitution and other social problems.

In order for tourism to realise its potential to achieve broad-based sustainable development, an effective partnership between Government and all sectors of the industry will be required.

It is understood thast in India, that the government is pump priming local “eco-tourism” activities, which are primarily driven by local women. In Mexico, the government is kick starting village development for “eco-tourism” lodges in the Chiapas region involving the whole community. In England, the government has recently held a national consultation on sustainable tourism and, as a result, is developing a new strategy for tourism, which incorporates the principles of sustainable development as a core component.

Tourism provides an essential lifeline for many coastal communities.

Faced with the prospect of increasing financial hardship, more and more coastal communities have turned to tourism as a means of generating income and survival. Tourism’s impact on the coastal zone has, therefore, been largely positive. Of course, as in any area, if Tourism is not properly managed and developed, it can be harmful.

The development of a sustainable tourism industry in the coastal zone offers numerous opportunities. Opportunities includes, those for nature conservation – which, given the increasing interest in high quality natural and cultural experiences, can help to reverse the decline in market share of many coastal destinations.

Tourism also provides important opportunities for strengthening local industries. Where industries are in decline, tourism ventures can help supplement declining income. The following examples illustrate what can be done to make the most of the opportunities offered by tourism in the coastal zone:

We are fully aware that Tourism has a number of advantages over other industry sectors:

· it creates jobs and wealth whilst;

· at the same time, it can contribute to sustainable development;

· it tends to have low start-up costs;· is a viable option in a wide range of areas and regions;

· is likely to continue to grow for the foreseeable future; and

· the industry is, in a large part, aware of the need to protect the resource on which it is based - local culture and built and natural environment - and it is committed to these resources’ preservation and enhancement.

The Cooperatives in addition to entering into the fray of tourism at all levels should also make the attempt by making a concerted effort to build up programs for sustainable development. However, it cannot do this alone. If Tourism is to continue to flourish and to contribute to sustainable development, it needs help from all fronts and essentially from the national Governments.

This assistance is needed in two forms: - both positive encouragement for sustainable tourism initiatives and an understanding that policy decisions in other areas can effect Travel & Tourism.

Governments in most countries are already more than aware that Tourism is a core service sector which should always be considered when looking at policies to expand trade, increase employment, modernise infrastructure and encourage investment - at both domestic and Cooperatives should also seek Government intervention to minimise regulatory impediments and by offering appropriate investment incentives.

By supporting tourism and allowing it to compete in open and fair markets, tourism’s benefits can be more easily secured.

Finally, the Cooperative Movement must take the initiative to address some of the fundamental barriers to tourism growth by looking at how to expand and modernise infrastructure, to render fair services and to invest in human resource development.

ICA - ROAP - BRIEF NOTES

International Co-operative Alliance - Asia & Pacific

An international organization committed for the promotion and development of co-operatives in the spirit of ICA’s Co-operative Identity Statement (ICIS).

Vision

To be prized as the organization of reference which provides an effective and efficient global voice and forum for knowledge, expertise and coordinated action for and about co-operatives.

What do we do

ICA, a global networking organization organized at the global, regional, sectoral and thematic levels, is a world-wide representative of co-operative organizations of all kinds.

ICA is the custodian of co-operative values and principles enshrined in the ICIS and its principal role is to provide forum for the exchange of ideas, experiences, concerns and trade among co-operatives.

ICA over the years has been lobbying with the governments for the creation of favorable policy environment for the development of cooperatives and advising necessary improvements in the cooperative legislation for better regulation of the cooperatives.

ICA is also seen as the organization capable of catalyzing & mobilizing thought churning process on relevant contextual issues affecting co-operatives at global and national levels.

ICA promotes sustainable human development and further the economic and social progress of people duly ensuring equality between men and women in all decision making and activities within co-operative movement.

History

The International Co-operative Alliance - Asia & Pacific is one of the operating regional offices of the ICA, the world confederation of co-operatives in existence since 1895 and presently head quartered in Geneva.

ICA has 225 member organizations worldwide from 87 countries of which 59 member organizations come from 23 countries in the Asia Pacific region.

Most of the members of ICA are national level co-operative organizations that serve all types of co-operatives operating in all sectors of national economies including those engaged in agricultural production and marketing, wholesale and retail, small and medium scale industries, financial services, insurance, housing, transport, health and other services.

Over 530 million individual members get benefited from the services of these co-operatives in the Asia Pacific region.

The Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific was opened in 1960 and is presently located at 9, Aradhana Enclave, Sector 13, R.K.Puram, Ring Road, New Delhi 110066, India.

ICA also has a sub-office in Singapore since 1999 to promote ICA’s business interests.

Objects of ICA AP

Promote the regional cooperative movement and facilitate global integration of cooperative movement;

Promote and protect co-operative values and principles;

Facilitate the development of economic and other mutually beneficial relations between / among its member organizations;

Promote sustainable human development and further the economic and social progress of people thereby contributing to international peace and security;

Promote equality between men and women in all decision-making and activities within the co-operative movement.

Operations

ICA AP seeks to obtain its objects by:

Serving as a forum for exchange of experience and as a source of information on co-operative development, research and statistics;

Coordinating actions for the promotion of co-operative development;

Collaborating with the global and regional institutions and with governmental and non-governmental international and national organizations, which pursue aims and importance to co-operatives.

APPLES SHOULD BE GROWN IN ALL CO-OP HOUSING PROJECTS

Putting the Apple-a-Day Adage to the Test

July 9, 2008

By Robert H. Shmerling, M.D.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

A Look at the Evidence

Okay, so maybe you've heard this one before: An apple a day keeps the doctor away. I wouldn't have considered this a myth because everyone knows it's not true, right? Well, not so fast. A number of recent studies have actually put this adage to the test, at least indirectly.

A Look at the Evidence

Consider the following studies published over the last few years:

In 2007, researchers from Pennsylvania State University found that study subjects who ate an apple before lunch — about 125 calories — consumed 187 fewer calories overall than subjects who didn't eat an apple. Applesauce and apple juice, on the other hand, had no such effect. The researchers suggested that the work of eating the apple or the time it took to eat it somehow made study subjects think they'd eaten more than they had.

Researchers from Cornell University published a study in 2004 in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showing that a the flavonoid, quercetin (found primarily in apples, berries and onions) protected the nerve tissue of rats from hydrogen peroxide, a standard oxidative stressor in laboratory preparations. Based on these findings, they theorized that apple consumption might reduce the risk of brain-damaging illnesses, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

In a 2007 study, researchers in the United Kingdom found that people who ate five apples a week had better lung function and a lower risk of asthma than people who did not eat apples. A prior study suggested the same thing and also linked the beneficial effects of apples to their high concentration of quercetin. Two additional studies have linked apple intake with a lower risk of lung cancer.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last year linked the high intake of flavonoids (a plant-based nutrient) with lower death rates from cardiovascular disease among postmenopausal women. Of course, apples weren't the only source of flavonoids associated with dodging cardiovascular death. Bran, pears, wine, grapefruit, strawberries and chocolate are also high-flavonoid foods whose intakes were associated with lower cardiovascular disease and/or death rates in this study.

According to a 2006 study, apple juice appeared to "rescue" brain function in mice with Alzheimer's-like disease or with nutritionally deficient diets. In addition to performing better in a maze after the addition of apple juice to their diets, a brain chemical called acetylcholine rose to normal.

Low levels of acetylcholine are associated with Alzheimer's disease in humans. The amount of apple juice these animals consumed was equivalent to two 8-ounce glasses or two to three apples a day for humans. By the way, this study was sponsored by the U.S. Apple Association and the Apple Products Research & Education Council

Is It Time To Get on the Apple Bandwagon?

Considering the findings of these studies, is it time to make apples a bigger part of your diet? Sure, if you like apples. But I don't think we have enough hard evidence to completely buy into the "apple cure" just yet. Some of this research is based on animals, which we know does not always apply directly to humans.

And it's notoriously difficult to perform studies of dietary intake and link them to specific health outcomes when there are so many variables to consider.

For example, when compared with people who don't like apples, maybe apple-eaters have other healthy behaviors, such as exercise, that lower their risk of heart or lung disease.

The Bottom Line

Apples may be even better for you than previously appreciated. They are a healthy food choice, especially if eaten instead of less nutritious snacks. But even if apples can't keep the doctor away, eating more apples are unlikely to cause you harm.

Regardless of how you feel about apples, this is a good example of how some "myths" are just waiting to be transformed into fact. Good research and an open mind is all that lies between the apple-a-day myth and "the next big thing" in healthy diets. Robert H. Shmerling, M.D. is associate physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

He has been a practicing rheumatologist for over 20 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He is an active teacher in the Internal Medicine Residency Program, serving as the Robinson Firm Chief. He is also a teacher in the Rheumatology Fellowship Program.

TAPS AND TOILETS FOR EVERYONE - SANITATION AND HYGIENE ARE CHEAP WAYS OF IMPROVING HEALTH

Sanitation and hygiene are cheap ways of improving health in developing countries With a portfolio of $20 billion in water-related projects, the World Bank is the largest external financier in the water sector The Bank is working to boost its sanitation efforts, together with the Water and Sanitation Program, a multi-donor partnership

August 18, 2008—Two out of five people worldwide lack access to a toilet. One out of six does not have access to safe drinking water. This lack contributes to two million child deaths a year, reduces school attendance, and is a fundamental deprivation of human dignity. Lack of sanitation pollutes water resources.

The costs of environmental and health degradation due to inadequate water and sanitation has been estimated at over 1% of GDP in Colombia, 0.6% in Tunisia, and 1.4% in Bangladesh. The economic costs in Southeast Asia are even higher.

This week at World Water Week in Stockholm, the international community observes the International Year of Sanitation.

The World Bank and the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), a global multi-donor partnership, will be there to highlight successful solutions to the water and sanitation problems facing low-income communities.

The World Bank is the largest external financier in the water sector, with a portfolio of $20 billion in water-related projects under implementation in more than 100 countries. Operations focus on improving water resource management and extending water services, including water supply and sanitation, irrigation and drainage, and hydropower.

Sanitation and hygiene: a cheap and highly effective lifesaver

The World Bank and the Water and Sanitation Program work in tandem to bolster the impact of Bank lending for sanitation. For instance, in Ethiopia, the World Bank supports decentralized approaches in towns and rural communities and finances infrastructure through lending operations. At the same time, WSP is providing technical assistance on the design and implementation of a National Hygiene and Sanitation Strategy.

The most severe problems are in high-density slums, where the risk of contamination is highest. An example of a successful Bank project is the Bombay Sewage Disposal Project, which helped provided sanitation to over a quarter of a million slum dwellers through community toilet blocks.

Much of Bank investment in middle-income countries is in urban sewage and wastewater treatment, areas of special concern for these countries. For instance, in Colombia, improved urban sanitation has resulted in untreated wastewater flowing into rivers. The Bank Group supports utilities in Colombiato increase wastewater treatment and become efficient organizations using homegrown solutions.

But the Bank also supports access to basic services for the many still lacking. For instance, the Bank helped the government of Brazil launch a pilot project called PROSANEAR. After extending services to nearly one million urban poor, PROSANEAR became a national program financed fully by national funds.

In rural areas, water and sanitation projects are often part of larger, multi-sector efforts. For instance, the Yemen Social Fund for Developmentprovided water services to two million people in remote mountain communities.

Just subsidizing hardware is not the solution. The Water and Sanitation Program also focuses on changing behavior. One of its flagship programs supports projects promoting handwashing with soap in Peru, Senegal,

Tanzania, and Vietnam."Our focus is on public education to shift attitudes at the household level," says Eduardo Perez, Senior Sanitation Specialist at WSP. "We are learning about what works to trigger, scale-up, and sustain handwashing behaviors. A promotion campaign in Ghana helped increase the number of women and children that washed their hands before eating or preparing food by 34 percent."

The Bank is giving an extra push to extend access to basic sanitation and hygiene through a rapid response team of sanitation professionals that provide technical assistance and advisory support to project teams.

"This SWAT team was set up as a response to the inclusion of basic sanitation as a Millennium Development Goal," says Pete Kolsky, World Bank Senior Sanitation Specialist.

"In sanitation any improvement is a step in the right direction. The Bank is open to lower-capital, lower-cost options."

THE HUMAN RIGHT TO EAT

By JOAN P. MENCHER

Somini Sengupta's front-page article, "India's Growth Outstrips Crops" (New York Times, June 22, 2008) points out various reasons for the current shortage of staple foods in India-- including rapidly sinking water tables, inadequate government investment in agriculture and especially in irrigation and access to loans for farmers, agricultural land being sold for residential use since the profits from agriculture were so poor.

Between 1968 and 1998 India's production of cereals had doubled, but between 1998 and 2008 it has gone down due to the cancellation of government support prices, which followed the advice of the World Bank and the United States economists. Based on my own field research on agricultural issues in India over the last fifty years I have always been surprised by the disconnect between what farmers tell me and what I hear from economists (most of whom rarely visit many farms). I see a very different picture.

Starting with the colonial occupation of India, the government's agricultural policies have focused on the accumulation of money by the well-do-do farmers and the government at the expense of those who tilled the land. Instead of focusing on increasing the production of multiple crops, grown in tandem either through crop rotations or by intercropping (such as the intercropping of trees and field crops), the focus was from early on, and more so during the last 10 years, on crops for export (for example bananas and other fruits to Europe) rather than on feeding its own population.

The journal Seedling, published by an NGO named GRAIN, points out that all of the largest grain traders in the world have greatly increased their profits during the past two years; Cargill, for example, announced that its profits from commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were 86% higher than for the same period of 2007. It is not surprising that the poor do not have enough to eat. See: www.grain.org

While many of us would consider the right to food to be a fundamental human right, the concept of "rights" has paradoxically been appropriated by multinational corporations, as well as governments, to expand the philosophy of neoliberalism. For example, recent changes in Mexican law have elevated the "right" of private ownership over the communal ownership of common lands, water resources, etc., traditionally observed by indigenous communities . And we are all familiar with the use of the "right" to individual (or corporate) ownership to steal traditional products of nature from local traditional societies, including not only indigenous tribal groups but also many preparations used by our grandmothers, by patenting them in a slightly modified form.

Seedling quotes a Canadian farmer saying: "farmers all over the world need to start thinking once again of food as a source of nutrition and sustenance and to re-connect with old ideas about fertility, knowledge, labour and community. . . awareness that the corporate strategy for world domination is unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating." Not only in some parts of rural India, but the world over, people's "rights " and their advocates are increasingly being heard, and people are beginning to look to a new pattern of agriculture that will be directed toward feeding people rather than toward profit.

After the dry spell in the mid 1960s-early 1970s, making India self-sufficient in food became a rallying call. But instead of basing the methods for accomplishing this on land reform (along with really well informed, ecologically sound extension), the politically driven emphasis on mono-cropping, export for profit, and complex market chains led to an adoption of the U.S. model of agriculture based on a limited number of commodities. This approach relied on an extensive use of artificial petrochemical-based fertilizers and pesticides, with a strong emphasis on the large and very large farmers (size defined in locally relevant terms).

With the so-called "liberalization" of the economy in the last 10 years, there has been a large emphasis on export crops, based on the views of economists who believed that it would be good for trade if India were to import many of its basic grains, taking advantage of what economists call "economies of scale", a concept borrowed from industry which ignores the realities of rural/agricultural life. As George Mombiot recently pointed out, it has been known since the 1960's that small farms produce greater yields per acre than large farms, sometimes as much as 20 times greater. (The Guardian, London, 10 June 2008). In the 1950s WalterGoldschmidt's work, as well as the political reaction to it, made it clear that industrial agriculture is less a matter of efficiency (productivity, energy, or capital usage) than of political power.

In any case, food is not simply a product, like a piece of cloth or a machine, though food companies have tried to turn it into commodities like pieces of cloth.. The growth of plants and animals is part and parcel of local communal life, of the quality of rural day-to-day existence and the local exchange of goods. The current policy also makes people dependent on the transportation of food and food products over long distances (using large amounts of petrochemicals), as well as on petrochemicals for fertilizers, herbicides, and enormous quantities of pesticides which are destructive of the soil, apart from having numerous health impacts.

In addition, the central and state governments have chosen to focus on larger size dams and irrigation projects, while neglecting local-level water conservation and water harvesting along with small household level ponds, the recycling of semi-contaminated water at the local level (such as bath water etc.) and failing to employ the most ecologically sound methods of water use, which has inevitably had a negative impact on agriculture.

In 1995, an important conference organized by the International Food Policy Research Institute based in Washington, D.C. concluded that with existing technology, along with new methods already being tried out--such as the SRI (System of Rice Intensification, developed in Madagascar), India would be able to feed itself for the next 25 or more years. Yet the significant increase in export farming, the continual neglect of small farmers, the belief held by the urban elite that basically nobody wants to farm, the rapid increase in the price of oil and other petrochemical products, has made it extremely difficult for poor farmers and even middle-sized ones.

The failure of various south Indian state governments (where I have been working) to support the use of (formerly) common lands by self-help groups of landless women which were producing vegetables both for their own consumption and the local market is one of the pieces of a broader failure to see sustainable agriculture by villagers as a meaningful alternative to so-called "modern" agriculture.

The tendency among the elite, and this includes many (though not all) economists, to belittle small farmers, those that grow for the local community and perhaps the nearby city, encourages farm policies that make rural people more dependent on importing foods from longer and longer distances, and that fail to meet the needs of local farmers and consumers both. The government's downplaying of procurement policies, buying of grains and basic foodstuffs at lower than market prices, only exacerbates food crises, and may even create them.

I have seen NGOs struggling to obtain funds to help with programs that assist small farmers having to fight both their local government policies as well as those of the central government. I have also witnessed farm after farm obtaining high yields of multiple crops when they are given not only financial support but also technical advice and examples to follow as well as community support. The focus of these groups is clearly at variance with most government policies.

Agricultural changes in the US today also reflect a rejection of centralized agricultural policies. We are experiencing a major change as more and more people turn to Community Supported Agriculture associations (CSAs), farmers' markets, and small-scale urban agriculture, which is creating a significant though still small movement which may well transform the way we eat. Even though this movement is against the interests of large corporate interests, it continues to grow. The movement in the US is starting from a very different place compared to the situation we find in India.

While the gap between urban elites and food cultivators is every way as great in India as in the U.S., perhaps even greater because of issues of caste in India, it is still possible for Indian farmers to be weaned away from export crops, and to return to production for local and regional markets. For example, in Bangalore I have seen how organic food brought in to a city market usually sells out in a few hours--even in poorer neighborhoods. People want healthier foods. Even urban people are beginning to grow their own vegetables and fruits (though not yet grains), as well as keeping a few hens to provide their families with fresh eggs.

For a number of reasons, the increasing cost of food may serve to send more people back to local consumption. The real problem in India and elsewhere are the really poor, in rural areas the landless, in urban areas the homeless or the slum dwellers, who lack even tiny amounts of space to grow food, or to innovate on water conservation, etc. At this moment in many countries of the world, these people are barely able to afford the minimum nutrition their bodies need. This is fine for the commodity traders, who are in a perfect position to profit from other people's hunger.

Is a trader's "right" to obscene levels of profit more sacred than a poor person's right to eat?

Which brings us back to the question of human rights--the right to land, to housing, to water, to food and to a decent quality of life for everyone. With a recognition of these rights most of the people reading this will have the chance to gain more autonomy over their own lives. The struggle for this is essential for both human survival and the survival of all types of life on this planet.

Joan P. Mencher is an Emerita Professor of Anthropology from the City University of New York's Graduate Center, and Lehman College of the City University of New York. She is the chair of an embryonic not-for-profit called The Second Chance Foundation,which works to support rural grassroots organizations in India and the United States who work with poor and small farmers on issues of sustainable agriculture. She has worked primarily in South India but also in West Bengal briefly, on issues of ecology, caste, land reform, agriculture, women, and related issues over the last half century, and has published widely both in the United States and in India on all of these subjects, primarily in academic journals.

CO-OPERATIVES & POVERTY AMIDST PLENTY

by

S. MANICKAM,

Secretary/Deputy President THE RAILWAY COOPERATIVE THRIFT & LOAN SOCIETY LIMITED KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA

Prepared in collaboration with

THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION OF INDIA: THE COOPERATIVE UNION OF MALAYSIA LIMITED : THE MIDLANDS COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED : KOPERASI KOWANIS BERHAD MALAYSIA : THE NATIONAL RAILWAY COOPERATIVES LIMITED : (KOPERASI REL NASIONAL BERHAD) : THE RAILWAY COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND LOAN SOCIETY LIMITED MALAYSIA

Ask any Co-operator involved in the Housing Movement and he would off the cuff utter that nowhere is this statement more true than in the cities and towns of developing countries.

Sprawling slums and informal settlements are increasingly becoming the physical expression of a global trend: the urbanization of poverty. At the start of the third millennium, 47 per cent of the world’s population lived in urban areas. Within the next two decades, this figure is expected to increase to 56 per cent. Even more challenging is the fact that 98 per cent of the projected global population growth during the next two decades will occur in developing countries.

The vast bulk of this increase (86 per cent) will occur in urban areas and of the total world’s urban population increase 94 per cent will occur in developing countries.

This population increase implies that about 39,000 new dwelling units will be required each and every day in developing countries during the next two decades – to cater for population growth alone. An increasing percentage of urban dwellers are earning their livelihood from the informal sector. One of the results of these trends has been a rapid growth of slums and informal settlements, where more than half of the population in many cities and towns of developing countries are currently living and working.

It is against this backdrop that the leaders of the world recently set themselves a new goal. Heads of State and Government resolved “By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the ‘Cities Without Slums’ initiative.

The term slum also includes the traditional meaning, that is, housing areas that were once respectable or even desirable, but which have since deteriorated, as the original dwellers have moved to new and better areas of cities.

The condition of the old houses has then declined, and the units have been progressively subdivided and rented out to lower-income groups. A typical example is the inner-city slums of many historical towns and cities in both the industrial and the developing countries. The term slum has, however, come to include also the vast informal settlements that are quickly becoming the most visual expression of urban poverty. The quality of dwellings in such settlements varies from the simplest shack to permanent structures, while access to water, electricity, sanitation and other basic services and infrastructure tends to be limited. Such settlements are referred to by a wide range of names and include a variety of tenurial arrangements.

In an effort to contribute to the realization of the goal referred to above, the Cooperative Movement as a whole and the Cooperative Housing Movement in particular have, in addition to steps being taken by the United Nations, HABITAT, Governments, the States, CHS, NGOs etc, to also devise and help promote a comprehensive approach to improving the conditions of people living and working in slums dependant upon the need or needs in each particular environment and country within the Asian framework. The strategy that has to be adopted by the Asian Cooperatives would, inter-alia, involve and should address the security of tenure and access to affordable shelter and services, as well as incomes and economic livelihoods. The principal object would be to ensure the provision of:

(a) Security of tenure;

(b) Structural quality/durability of dwellings;

(c) Access to safe water;

(d) Access to sanitation facilities.

The main arguments for the clearance of slums have been linked to their potential as breeding grounds of political dissent, disease, crime and prostitution. Many slum removal initiatives have in fact had the removal of a percieved eyesore as their primary objective. Unfortunately for such initiatives poor people tend to remain poor even when their houses have been demolished.

The simple explanation for the existence of slums outlined above, for example the inability of formal shelter delivery systems to cope with demand, is just one part of the explanation. Firstly, the explanation has to be elaborated upon to explain why slums are where they are. The simplest answer relates to the economic logic of land and housing markets. Secondly it is more than obvious that the Co-operative Movement has ignored the plight of slums and has catered to the building of homes and condomoniums for the well heeled within the Movement. The need for the Housing Movement in the arena of Co-operatives to give greater and wider emphasis is now more than imminent and it is the hope that this Conference would be one of the forerunners in Asia to get everyone moving to make the Asian cities to be models parallel to cities like Singapore; Shanghai etc.

It is of course beyond the means of normal comprehension to earmark Singapore or Shanghai as role models because of the varying tugs and pulls of political, socio economic and financial forces that interact in each domain. Whatever said the Cooperatives however need to take an increasingly pro active role to supplement the roles of all other agencies involved in slum clearance because in the final analysis there can never be a better substitute to shelter built by members under the aegis and the spirit of ‘Co-operativism.’

The introduction of enabling shelter strategies in most countries during the last two decades has implied a change from policies of intervention to policies of liberalization. Consequently, land and housing markets have been increasingly commercialized. In any commercial market, choice is a positive function of income.

The consequence is that the very poor often have no choice in housing at all, and have to live where no one else chooses to live. Secondly, an even more basic issue relates to the logic of general economic development. Many observers have highlighted the role that slums play in providing labour for the formal sector of national economies.

The earlier focus in most developing countries on physical planning and public housing shifted to self- help housing initiatives. These included sites and services projects, which mostly served middle-income households and proved to be unsustainable due to the high subsidies involved. The focus later moved on to the enabling approach, also considered in upgrading approaches which aimed at maximizing the contributions of all the actors in the housing production process within a supportive legal and regulatory framework.

Demolition of substandard dwellings, forced evictions from slums and informal settlements and relocation actions without due process, however, still continue in many cities and countries. Many of the policies and strategies adopted even have an appropriate recognition of facts and an assessment of the limitations, which should set the framework for realistic implementation processes. These policy and strategy documents, however, can rarely be effectively turned into action. Their effectiveness in implementation are constrained by:

(a) Weak or lacking institutional arrangements;

(b) Ineffective or lacking mechanisms to engage the poor themselves, and provide an appropriate enabling framework to harness their potential contribution;

(c) Inadequate or lacking legal frameworks;

(d) Inadequate or lacking fundamental tools such as land registration systems and records

(e) Lack of strategic focus, such as on the needs and potential contributions of women;

(f) Limited or lacking financial resources;

(g) Limited or lacking political will.

The most important factor that limits progress in improving housing and living conditions of low income groups in informal settlements and slums, is the lack of genuine political will to address the issue in a fundamentally structured, sustainable and large scale manner. It is widely acknowledged that political will in addressing problems associated with informal settlements and slums usually surfaces and strengthens before elections or at the verge of an important event that may affect a specific location or project.

After the event the political interest tends to revert to the previous status quo situation. There is no doubt that political will, long lasting and structured interventions with local ownership and leadership, and the mobilization of the potential and capacity of all the stakeholders, particularly the people themselves, constitute the key to success. Lessons from several countries underscore the importance and the fundamental role of sustained political will and commitment. The role of non-governmental organizations in promoting political will and advocacy is quite significant in many countries.

Obectives in approaching the issue of slums and informal settlements should go beyond traditional contexts and address the need for realization of “human rights” (all economic, social and cultural rights – and in this context, most importantly housing rights), poverty eradication and social integration, all of which should have a specific focus on gender equality and the needs of women.

In addition, these initiatives should balance market incentives and private investments - which are essential to efficient housing delivery - with social and environmental goals and collective action - which require public sector interventions and are central to equity and sustainability. Adequate housing should be regarded both as a goal in itself and as a contributor to sustainable economic growth, social development and integration.

Many existing good practices for shelter and services delivery can rarely get past the demonstration or pilot phase and tend not to be replicable. The main reasons for this are the lack of clear institutional linkages, the lack of economic sustainability and a failure to reinvest. New initiatives are often perceived as threats to existing structures in local administrations. Internal resistance to change is exacerbated by turf-wars and failure to share information among all stakeholders within the administration.

The fact that conventional housing finance usually works in favour of higher income groups is reflected in a highly segmented housing market. Housing is usually available – often with high vacancy rates – at the high quality, high cost and high-income segment of the market. Meanwhile, the low end of the market is extremely tight, with low or no vacancy rates. One of the reasons why the market does not work for the poor is the lack of finance.

Conventional housing finance institutions are accessible and provide housing finance to the middle and high income segment of the population. Public sector housing finance institutions have offered longer-term loans also to lower income groups, but even these have largely been restricted to borrowers with clear land title and certifiable income – a condition only met in public low-income housing projects.

The vast majority of the population remains excluded. This is the sector that beckons the Housing Cooperatives. The poor, low and even middle income majority of the population in developing countries can not afford a loan even for the least expensive, commercially built housing units. The Cooperatives have the means and know how and the necessary contacts both nationally and internationally on how to get these poor downtrodden ones to get together to pool their scarce resources as seed money to get a project moving. One example that shows success in one city would be sufficient motivation for other slum dwellers to get themselves involved in the process to get more and more dwellers to find the ways and the means to utilize the co-operative concept to eventually find a shelter over their heads. Following that the Co-operatives would have a vast vista of co-operative projects to handle which would meet the upstream and downstream requirements of the members in the area.

The main reason for for slum dwellers to even dream of owning a home is their salaries which are in the low income, high construction costs and the high cost of long-term finance. Consequently, many poor and low or even middle income owner-occupier households build their own houses progressively over long periods (as long as 10 to 15 years), or are simply tenants. Different approaches to housing finance are required, as long-term mortgage loans are inappropriate to the financial possibilities of the poor. Access to small amounts of credit, with short-term maturities, can be useful if the poor and low income groups are to be supported and the Co-operatives certainly excel in this area.

While a large proportion of urban dwellers are tenants simply because they cannot afford to be owners, other urban dwellers choose to be tenants because of the advantages this may give them in the labour market. A large proportion of slum dwellers are not only involved in the informal sector when it comes to a place to live – their place of work is also in the informal sector. The nature of their employment may imply that they have to move around in order to maximize their income. In order to minimize transport costs they choose to live in locations close to their place of work, where the cost of housing may be beyond their reach. Ownership of affordable housing in another part of town may be incompatible with their willingness or ability to spend excessive amounts of time and money for transport purposes.

The supply of cheap rental housing is an essential component of the continued existence of a cheap urban labour force. Or, as was noted in paragraph 10 above, slums are good for business. This begs the question: who owns the structures in the urban slums of developing countries? Again, there is very little comprehensive data.

The following is a tentative categorization of such structure owners:

(a) Slum lords, who rent out a large number of dwellings (wealthy individuals with political clout, either local politicians or those able to influence local politicians);

(b) Headmen, who may manage a two digit number of dwellings (proxies for slum lords, low-income individuals -frequently of imposing physical stature- who manage the properties of frequently anonymous slum lords, and may be paid in kind or cash for this service);

(c) Small-scale landlords, who rent out a smaller number of structures or rooms (normally in the range of 5-15 units);

(d) Self-help landlords, households that rent out a room or two, frequently added to their own residences for this particular purpose.

Attempts to increase the supply of cheap rental housing require a thorough understanding of the way the different markets for such housing operate. Many slum structure owners do not operate with the specific purpose to make undue profits.

Several studies indicate that households that rent out rooms in their own house tend to be just as poor as their tenants. Their primary objective is to supplement their income, however. The importance for governments to adopt rental housing policy to attract private investors has so far been overlooked in most developing countries.

One of the weakest links of government housing policies for the urban poor is the policy (or the lack of it) for urban land management. Due to rapid urbanization, the urban poor are forced to find their shelter in illegal settlements located in a variety of lands: customary land, government land reserves, marginal land or in illegal subdivisions.

The resulting growth of informal settlements, primarily in peri-urban locations, is often the response to government inaction, or ineffective interventions that create more problems than they solve.

Government inaction has been most marked in the area of land information systems. Few countries have sought to improve their land titling and registration systems. Weak cadastral, registration and tenure record have made efficient land market operations next to impossible. This has made access to land even more difficult for low income households.

Most city governments are also facing mounting problems with the collection and disposal of solid wastes. Typically, only a third of solid wastes generated by urban residents and commercial establishments are collected by city authorities.

The haphazard growth of peri-urban settlements and a total disregard to basic norms allow little access to solid waste removal services in these densely populated areas. The result is indiscriminate dumping of wastes in roads, pavements and open drains – with the associated health risks.

An important obstacle to stepping up investment flows in urban basic services has been the reluctance by city authorities to put in place a realistic pricing policy that could ensure cost recovery, which could then be ploughed back as new investment. Ironically, it is the affluent groups who benefit most from under-pricing of basic services such as water supply, as the poor are rarely connected to municipal services and have to rely on the informal market.

Generally the poorest city residents pay the highest unit price for services, such as water and energy. This tends to reinforce the cycle of poverty. The relationship is not however well understood. Clearly, further research is necessary to address tenure and housing rights, shelter provision and urban poverty reduction.

The Cooperative Housing Movement in all the countries where they operate in one form or other have the potential to bring efficiency gains and cost-effectiveness in urban basic services delivery. Moreover, effective regulatory controls may ensure that poor neighbourhoods are not neglected. Yet, with few notable exceptions, most city authorities continue with their role as service providers, with little involvement of communities and the private sector.

A strong political commitment, transparency in management and sound strategies are needed to attract more private sector investment in urban services. Involvement of Cooperatives and non-governmental organizations and community participation in the provision and management of urban basic services can go a long way towards cost recovery and long-term sustainability of services.

Policies and programmes should therefore focus with priority on building capacity at the local level for effective community participation in the planning, provision and management of infrastructure and services. The women of the community, in particular, have proved themselves to be important agents for change.

The understanding of urban poverty still needs to be developed. This will necessarily require a clarification of the link between what is understood by social exclusion: including work and unemployment, distribution of wealth and equity issues, racism and xenophobia, spatial dimension and urban management, and identity and political systems.

Institutional responses tend to focus on income generation, without considering the social, political and psychological factors which constitute the indivisible character of poverty. Public sector responses to poverty are also usually based on a simplified view of the poor as a homogeneous group. In reality, the poor are very diverse in their difficulties, needs and capacities. They thus require a differentiated, but coordinated, assessment and response.

Increasingly, the provision of basic services in the low-income areas of cities has become a key opportunity to improve the living environment for the urban poor, while at the same time improving livelihood prospects. The sheer densities of population prevalent in slums make the need to reduce the environmental and health impacts even greater and also make micro-enterprises established for the purpose more financially viable.

Services include water, sanitation, waste management and transportation. Several novel approaches have been reported where viable micro-enterprises have been established. This has led to an increased demand for appropriate finance mechanisms for diversification and expansion, together with progress in the development and application of appropriate technologies.

The right to adequate housing has gained increasing recognition among human rights bodies and stakeholders, and many governments have adopted or revised housing policies to include various dimensions of human rights. The second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), held in 1996 harnessed this trend. The outcomes of the Conference, the Istanbul Declaration ,the Habitat Agenda, constitute a framework where human settlements development is linked with the process of realization of human rights in general and housing rights in particular.

The promotion of security of tenure is an attempt to address several aspects of urban upgrading. Specifically, it is an entry point into the complex, multidimensional nature of poverty, the politics of land and slum upgrading, and urban citizenship and associated equal rights of women and men.

Security of tenure is also increasingly regarded as a useful entry point for improving living conditions. In practical terms for the individual slum dweller, security of tenure translates into a degree of certainty that can motivate investment of his or her own resources for the purpose of improving shelter and services. In some cases, a certificate of right or temporary occupancy can serve as an instrument for making claims on public resources or negotiating with authorities for access to basic services. Secure tenure may also legitimize land or structures on that land as forms of collateral for credit, and therefore investment.

The concept of shelter is broad, and frequently crucial aspects of tenure are ignored or forgotten. For example, although the tenure of a dwelling is important, the tenure of the workplace is extremely important. This is particularly the case for slum-based micro-enterprises. Any strengthening of tenure aspects related to livelihood and income generation will positively and considerably improve the quality of life of people living in poverty.

It is important to note that securing tenure for the community (or the household) does not necessarily mean securing tenure for women and their children. This is because of unequal household and social relationships based on law, custom or economic relations. In slum upgrading that involves regularization of tenure, specific measures must be taken to ensure that extension of secure tenure benefits men and women equally.

When addressing the issue of slum improvement and slum upgrading it is critical to include a specific focus on women and their situation, needs and roles in shelter development. In poor urban neighbourhoods, women predominantly remain the managers of homes and neighbourhoods, and providers of services. A large number of women in the slums work in the informal sector, often at home or close to home.

Women's engagement in public life is thus very often through neighbourhood organizations that are linked to providing or negotiating for services such as refuse removal, accessible clean water, spaces for commercial activities and safer public transport.

If the “Cities Without Slums” goal is to be achieved, it is not sufficient to raise incomes and construct more houses. Specific interventions are required to significantly improve the conditions of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. In this connection, it is important to take note of the rapidly changing global demographic structure. Estimates indicate that the population of the world is ageing at an unprecedented pace.

In less than half a century, life expectancy in the world increased by 20 years. By 2025, one of every seven persons will be in the older age group (over 60 years) and about 70 per cent of this group will be living in developing countries. This global trend coupled with the ongoing urbanization process has significant effects on human settlements as well as on economic and social development. Governments and stakeholders need to consider these issues in all aspects of housing policy, including the upgrading of slums.

While consensus had been building on the need for decentralization of responsibilities and empowerment of local authorities as a fundamental principle in urban governance, evidence from all around the world indicates that this process is not advancing very fast.

Difficulties are arising both from the central level and from inadequacy of operational modalities at the local level. The most important difficulty in the decentralization process is the limitations of transfer of authority. Legal and administrative frameworks should promote autonomy over the acquisition and expenditure of public revenues. On the other hand, lack of participatory planning processes, limitations in the capacity of civil society organizations and modalities to involve the most vulnerable groups in decision-making appear as factors at the local level hindering the effectiveness of decentralization.

Although accurate statistics are not yet available, it seems that the number of slums and informal settlements are increasing globally. This trend is continuing, despite the fact that considerable improvements

Much success stories abound of the progress that have been achieved in some countries that have initiated effective programmes and decisive actions in addressing the goal of adequate shelter for all. To ensure and facilitate the expansion of these positive developments to other countries, the Millennium Declaration endorses the “Cities Without Slums” goal of “improving the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020”

The figure of 100 millions sounds huge, but when compared to the estimated current population of one billion slum dwellers globally, it is a modest but realistic target. It implies addressing the needs of only 10 per cent of the world’s urban population who currently suffer from diverse aspects of inadequate shelter, including lack of security of tenure and access to basic services and infrastructure.

From the outset, it is clear that such a long-term initiative needs to involve fully all stakeholders related to the upgrading process, first amongst them the slum dwellers themselves. The best organ to motivate the slum dweller is obviously the Co-operative movement.

Secondly, all related public authorities at the national, city and local levels should be involved from the beginning to the end. Thirdly, all related civil society organizations (including non-governmental organizations, research institutes and professional associations) should mobilize their capacity and potential to contribute to these activities.

If the global “Cities Without Slums” action plan is to be taken seriously, it should be translated into national and local action plans and duly monitored. Countries and cities should therefore be invited to define their own targets and monitoring mechanisms. According to the action plan, 20 citywide and/or nationwide programmes should be initiated during 2001-2005.

Within this framework, eminent persons in the Co-operative fraternity may wish to provide guidance in seeking answers to the following questions:

(a) How can the commitments of the Habitat Agenda and the Millennium Declaration be turned into effective national and local policies and actions;

(b) How can the implementation of the two global campaigns (particularly the Campaign for Secure Tenure) be made more effective, both at the global and national levels;

(c) Who are the stakeholders in this process and how can they be best assisted;

(d) How can guidelines be prepared on key areas such as prevention of unlawful evictions, proper relocation processes when inevitable, and promotion of rental markets for the poor;

(e) How can a coordinated global monitoring and evaluation system be best established and operated.