The World Bank

Fifty years is enough.

Lets throw it out!

Codex Alimentarius: Globalizing Food (Threat to India's food security)

Codex Alimentarius: Globalizing Food

"There is a huge shift taking place in the global awareness in the last 5 years with strong views about globalization and the power structures of major corporations." David Korten

Codex Alimentarius, according to its website, was created in 1963 by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program. The stated purposes of this Program are protecting the health of consumers, ensuring fair trade practices and promoting coordination of food standards.

At first sight, that seems a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, the nice words hide a more sinister reality.

Codex Alimentarius is an industry-sponsored international legislative forum that promotes corporate interests in a globalized market, rather than consumer health and fair trade.

Until a decade ago, few had ever heard of Codex Alimentarius, which means Food Law, unless they were directly involved in the tedious job of working out its standards or in making sure their country changed laws and procedures to comply with Codex rules, but that changed.

In 1994, the German delegation of an obscure committee – the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses - proposed draft guidelines to regulate a new type of foods that had appeared in Germany during the 1980s but didn't look like foods at all. They were tablets and capsules with what to the Germans seemed crazy doses of vitamins and minerals. So for all intents and purposes these vitamin pills – they were called food supplements – seemed more like medicines to the German mind than the Sauerkraut and Apfelstrudel which were the healthy foods of the time.

The proposed guidelines promoted dosage restrictions in line with the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for each substance. Ironically, the idea of RDAs as a minimum (not an optimum) amount everyone should get of certain vital nutrients had been introduced in post-war Germany by the American occupation force but now it was used by the Germans to resist the push of new generation nutritional supplements into a very regulated and very pharma-friendly market. After all, medicines were big business. German pharmaceutical companies had been a mainstay of the export economy and were major actors in the so-called Wirtschaftswunder, the miraculous post-war economic recovery of German industry and commerce.


Although much of the industrial clout shifted from post-war Germany to the victorious Allies, especially the United States, when we consider globalizing markets, countries are not the major players. Industry, by merger and by taking over competitors, has become a force unto itself, no longer part of any one country and often outstripping countries in size.

A global club of producers resisting control by national legislators and governments, seeking to be left to the pursuit of profits, with as little interference and as little competition as possible. A well financed lobby addressing both lawmakers and government agencies works tirelessly to bring about what the multinationals like to call "a level playing field".

The global food and pharma industry just love Codex. Since its guidelines are often used as a template for national laws, once a guideline is passed, much work is saved in convincing countries to change their laws. They will normally adjust national rules to be in line with Codex.

Nominally, compliance with Codex guidelines is voluntary. Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995 however, any country that does not comply and finds itself in a trade dispute with another country, runs the risk of being subjected to trade sanctions. This is because the international court that decides in matters of trade disputes is bound to use international guidelines, where they exist, as their basis of law. So in real world terms, Codex Alimentarius guidelines are international law.

Additives, pesticides and GMOs

Codex Alimentarius has more than twenty active committees and task forces deciding on anything from animal feed to fishery products, from biotechnology to pesticide residues. While I cannot do more than briefly mention these other areas of Codex work, it may be useful to point out that this is essentially industry making its own laws.

Codex is a great promoter of foods derived from biotechnology, better known as genetically modified organisms or frankenfoods. Since GMOs are Codex approved, it is very difficult for any country wishing to protect its citizens' health to refuse import of such foods. To justify a ban, a country has to go up against the scientific might of the world's best industry experts and prove, scientifically, that there is a danger. Europe is standing up to Codex on genetic modification to some degree, but only with great difficulty.

When we find pesticides and chemical additives in our foods we can thank Codex for that. Industry experts have figured out the levels that should be allowed in foods and Codex has institutionalized these levels. Any national attempt to reduce pesticides below the levels allowed by Codex or to eliminate some chemicals puts the country at risk of trade sanctions.

Although Codex has a task force on antimicrobial resistance, it has not banned the use of antibiotics in raising farm animals. There is an emergency coming our way - antibiotics are becoming ineffective. More and more resistant strains of bacteria are developing. The cause is known: huge quantities of antibiotics used in commercial animal feeding operations find their way into our food supply. Codex deplores the fact but does not prohibit the practice.

Industry lobby and national Codex delegations

Although Codex, as we have seen, is really an international law making body, it is by no means democratic. Codex delegations are typically formed by medium level health ministry officials advised by numerous industry experts. The industry decides how to vote or what proposals to make on a given topic. The official head of a delegation is rarely knowledgeable enough, nor sufficiently determined on any course of action to set aside the advice and wishes of the industry lobbyists.

Decisions in the Codex Committees are reached by consensus. Seldom if ever are there any votes. Consensus is said to be an absence of sustained opposition to a proposal or text. The chair of any Committee has the power to give delegations time to talk or to deny any further discussion. That same person also declares when a consensus has been reached, passing to the next point of discussion. The result is – more often than not – a guideline text that leaves many delegations unsatisfied because their amendments were not accepted or their opposition not taken into account.

In this sense, Codex itself is profoundly undemocratic. It is able to bypass national parliaments completely and it can choose to ignore or override input from national delegations. An apparency of democratic process is maintained by allowing non governmental organisations (NGOs) to attend meetings and at times to speak, but their voice is powerless. NGOs don't vote and their views are not taken into account when deciding on consensus.

Food supplements

It took the Codex Nutrition Committee a full decade – from 1994 to 2004 - to hammer out a text on food supplements. The final confirmation came the following year at a meeting of the full Codex Commission – the guideline was officially passed on the fourth of July 2005. Irony of ironies, some said, to finalize a guideline with the potential to greatly limit supplement availability on a day that for Americans signifies freedom and independence.

So the winner in the first round was Germany, or rather its pharmaceutical industry, but not without a lot of work and some intrigue. Although the Codex guideline proposal was made in 1994, it was not until the European Union had made its own law, a directive on food supplements, that enough of a force could be mustered to push the Codex guideline through against US resistance. The European directive meant all the European member states' delegates had to vote in unison, and in accordance with the text of the newly passed European law. With the combined strength of the then 15 EU member countries, supported by Rolf Grossklaus, the German chairman of the Nutrition Committee and Basil Mathioudakis, a senior official in the EU's Health and Consumer Directorate, the Codex guideline on supplements was eventually passed. The text remained very similar to the original German proposal and is practically an identical twin of the European directive on supplements.

Round two

The victory gained on independence day 2005 was sweet for the Germans, but it wasn't a knockout defeat for the US pharmaceutical and supplement industries. The text as passed has no teeth: it still lacks the figures to limit nutrient dosages in supplements. No actual limits were set, but it was agreed that work should proceed to scientifically evaluate the levels of intake at which nutrients show certain undesired effects.

While there may be some concern for a few nutrients at exaggerated dosages, supplements as they are sold today are extremely safe. They are much safer than food and aren't even visible on any statistics for causes of death. Yet the risk evaluation process that is to result in hard numbers for limiting nutrient doses is patterned after the way toxic chemicals are evaluated.

There are no positive health effects of chemical poisons, so any adverse effect is of importance. Nutrients instead are required for life. So any evaluation of risk should of course consider both sides of the equation - weighing the seriousness and number of adverse events against the potential good nutrients do when present in abundance. This is what discussions in this present round of nutrient risk assessment are about. Finding a cut-off dosage for each nutrient, will technically make higher dosages illegal, unavailable for anyone to buy.

Honest science and transparency

Supplements have become a political bone of contention. There are the restrictive countries – Germany backed by France, Greece, Denmark, Norway and some others, and we have more liberally inclined ones like the United States, South Africa, the UK, Ireland, Sweden and the Netherlands. The contest seems to center around "my industry is better than yours", when it should really be "how can human health be improved".

I believe we must find a way to bring transparency and scientific honesty to this process. As long as science is subordinate to industry and research can be skewed to fit industry's desires, as long as industry's wishes determine international rules and regulations where a self-interested group of multinational corporations can tell us what we should or should not eat, we will be in trouble.

We need independent scientists and a more balanced procedure of making these international regulations.

How about reforming Codex!


Most of the information in this article is based on my personal experience. Data has been collected and opinions matured during more than a decade, attending numerous meetings of industry groups, NGOs and Codex Committees. The article was finished on 8 August 2008, with some revisions on 10 August. It was originally written for Truth magazine. It is in the public domain and you may re-publish the entire article or use any part or all of it in a new article of your own composition.

Websites to check out about Codex:

Codex Alimentarius official site:
National Health Federation:
American Holistic Health Association:
La Leva di Archimede:
Dr Rath:

Sepp Hasslberger

Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers

Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers
by Emad Mekay / Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Of the top five outside international appointments made by embattled World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz during his nearly two-year tenure, three were senior political appointees of right-wing governments that provided strong backing for U.S. policy in Iraq.The latest appointment came just last month when former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher was named senior vice president for external affairs.

Muasher served as King Abdullah’s ambassador here in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and reportedly played a key role in ensuring Amman’s co-operation in the March 2003 invasion.

During and after the invasion, when he served first as foreign minister and then as deputy prime minister, he was considered among Washington’s staunchest supporters in an increasingly hostile Arab world.

Muasher’s appointment came nine months after Wolfowitz named former Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio as the Bank’s senior vice president and general counsel. As foreign minister, she was an outspoken proponent of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, to which her government, led by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, contributed 1,500 troops.

Also in June 2006, Wolfowitz named former Salvadoran Finance Minister Juan Jose Daboub as one of the Bank’s two managing directors. In addition to his financial post, Daboub served as chief of staff to former President Francisco Flores when, as a charter member of the U.S.-led “Coalition of the Willing”, he sent nearly 400 Salvadoran combat troops to Iraq, more than any other developing country.

Wolfowitz is currently fending off growing calls, particularly from Bank staff, non-government organisations and a number of former senior Bank officials, for his resignation over charges that he improperly negotiated a promotion and compensation package for his romantic partner, career Bank staffer Shaha Riza, who was subsequently seconded to the U.S. State Department.

Wolfowitz, who became the Bank’s president in June 2005, has long insisted that his own role as deputy defence secretary under U.S. President George W. Bush, in which he was a key architect of the Iraq war, would never influence his decisions at the Bank.

As recently as Thursday, as finance and development ministers began gathering here for the annual Spring Meetings of the Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Wolfowitz again denied that his connection to the Iraq war has played any role in his work at the Bank and suggested that the calls by staff for him resign were motivated at least in part by anti-war sentiment.

“For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my previous job,” he said, “I am not in my previous job.”

But persistent efforts by Wolfowitz to recruit a new country manager for Iraq despite concerns over staff security there — as well as the Bank’s attempts last month to suppress reports about an incident in which a Bank employee was injured in Baghdad, apparently to avoid derailing his recruitment efforts — have lent credence to critics’ charges that he has been more than eager to line up the institution and its resources behind U.S. policy there.

The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key right-wing Republican aides — none with any development experience — who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.

There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on Wolfowitz’s part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent journalists that the administration’s pre-war allegations of an operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were indeed true.

It is in that context that Wolfowitz’s appointments of non-U.S. individuals who were not already working for the Bank to top posts appear significant.

“I believe that Paul Wolfowitz has used his tenure in part to reward those governments and individuals who were particularly helpful to the U.S. in the Iraq War,” said Steven Clemens, director of the American Strategy Programme of the New America Foundation, who has closely followed Wolfowitz’s career on his much-read blog,

“To me, that’s a completely irresponsible approach to managing one of the world’s most important economic development institutions,” he added.

Since taking the reins, Wolfowitz has made five senior non-U.S. outside appointments at the Bank. In addition to Muasher, Palacio, and Daboub, they include Vincenzo La Via, a former Italian finance ministry official who serves as the Bank’s chief financial officer, and Lars Thunell, a Swede who serves as executive vice president of the Bank’s International Finance Corporation, a post for which the Bank president traditionally defers to the choice of the Bank’s major European donors.

In contrast to the last two, Muasher, Palacio and Daboub were all political appointees in governments that strongly backed the Bush administration on Iraq and on other issues, as well.

Daboub was a senior member of the ruling right-wing ARENA party in El Salvador and effectively ran the country’s economic policy from 1999 to 2004.

“He really was [then president Francisco] Flores’ right-hand man,” said Roberto Rubio, president of the Fundacion Nacional para Desarrollo in San Salvador, ” and, as such, pursued the most orthodox economic policy in the country’s history, closely tied to U.S. policies.”

According to Rubio, he was also a frequent visitor to Washington, where he founded the Instituto America Libre to advocate free market policies. At a conference here in 2005, he called on Washington to “act more aggressively on the problem of security that South American populists represent to the United States and to other Latin American countries that have not fallen into leftist hands yet.”

Palacio, an outspoken supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, lost her position as foreign minister after the 2004 defeat of Aznar’s Partido Popular in 2004. Before her appointment to the Bank, she repeatedly denounced the decision of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq and praised the persistence of both Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

In an interview with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute’s magazine, American Enterprise, in late 2005, she accused Zapatero of “plung(ing) Spain into Third World politics” by allying it more closely with France and Germany than with Britain and the U.S.

As Jordan’s ambassador here before the Gulf War and later as foreign minister, Muasher met with then-deputy defence secretary Wolfowitz on at least several occasions, according to the Pentagon’s website.

Despite King Abdullah II’s public criticism of the war, Washington found a “willing” — if behind-the-scenes — ally in Muasher. While Jordan, like other Arab countries, did not send troops to Iraq, it quietly provided intelligence and other critical support for the U.S. before and during the war. It has also helped train thousands of Iraqi security personnel and tightened control of its borders to prevent the infiltration of Sunni fighters after the war.

As deputy prime minister, Muashar was charged with implementing the country’s “reform” agenda, a portfolio that required frequent contact with U.S. officials, including former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East and South Asian Affairs Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney with whom Wolfowitz was closely allied during Bush’s first term.

Washington increased its aid to Jordan by some 300 million dollars in 2003 to a total of 450 million dollars. In 2006, it received 500 million dollars split between economic and military assistance.

Jordan’s benefits from the war included oil subsidies from Gulf States, substantial new U.S. aid, a booming real estate sector, and a growing Iraq-related trade and transport account — and, apparently, the appointment of Muasher to the World Bank’s vice presidency.

“It’s not at all surprising given Wolfowitz’ actions so far within the Bank and the Bush administration’s propensity to reward allies and cronies,” said Doug Hellinger, co-director of the Development GAP and a veteran Bank observer.

Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service.
Published on Saturday, April 14, 2007 by Inter Press Service

World Bank Should Go With Wolfowitz

World Bank Should Go With Wolfowitz - Activists
Analysis by Anil Netto

PENANG, Malaysia, May 21 (IPS) - Paul Wolfowitz's fall from grace is symptomatic of the double standards and hypocrisy of the World Bank and strains the marriage between neo-liberal policies and militarism that he embodied, say activists and analysts.

Wolfowitz, an architect of the war on Iraq, finally bowed to pressure after a favouritism scandal involving his girlfriend, ex-bank employee Shaha Riza. He is due to step down as Bank president on Jun. 30, three days after another key player in the aggression on Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, heads for the exit.

"It's a humiliating, and, for many, not unwelcome, fall for Wolfowitz who thought he'd found a respectable bolt-hole at the World Bank after his criminal enterprise in Iraq," said Glasgow-based political scientist John Hilley, who has written on militarism and neo-liberalism. ''Yet, it's a dark irony that he has gone down for engaging in cheap, nepotistic malpractice while his high crimes, the design and execution of mass terror in Iraq, go unpunished.''

"Of course, it's a hypocritical posture of little surprise for a body that has overseen, via its key finance arm, the IFC, the systematic enslavement of Third World countries," Hilley told IPS in an interview over e-mail.

Critics see Wolfowitz's removal as a reluctant damage limitation exercise by an institution on the ropes as it fends off the gathering struggle against neo-liberal orthodoxy. This struggle is being led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is spearheading efforts to forge a new set of financial alternatives to the Bank and International Monetary Fund across Latin America.

Ironically, it was only last year, during the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank held in Singapore, that Wolfowitz had unveiled a drive towards good governance, which he said was a broader concept than anti-corruption. Critics viewed it as a public relations scheme to restore the World Bank's credibility after years of complicity with corrupt regimes and disastrous neo-liberal policies.

The Bank's decisions to block funding for essential projects in India, Chad and Kenya on the basis of suspected corruption, however, drew sharp criticism. In particular, its move in 2005 to suspend 800 million dollars in loans for maternal and children's health in India because of potential graft provoked an outcry.

"On the surface, his campaign against corruption linked to World Bank loans sounded good. But he went about it in a high-handed way,'' independent Malaysian political analyst and writer Fan Yew Teng told IPS. ''You cannot have this holier-than-thou attitude and stop essential projects such as medical, water supply and food production -- because it will kill people."

Moreover, the stance smacked of double standards. ''America's friends were not to be regarded as corrupt and all the onus of dealing with corruption lay with the recipient country, not with either the donor or the home country of the briber,'' observed Stephen Mandel, senior economist at the London-based New Economics Foundation. The NEF is an independent think-tank that challenges mainstream thinking on economic, environment and social issues.

Loans, however, continued to be awarded to countries with poor human rights records, especially Pakistan, and Bank staff are known to have complained at the speed with which he was pushing them to get into lending to Iraq, Mandel told IPS over e-mail.

The Bank showed no concern for human rights in its lending, only concern about corruption, and that too defined in a biased way, so there is no sign that the Bank was moving away from building up more odious debt, said Mandel. ''It is no surprise that favouring a girlfriend (or a private corporation - as with the sweetheart deals between the U.S. defence department and Halliburton and other U.S. contractors) is not seen as corruption whereas the skimming off of funds by a primary school head is -- even if such a school head may not be being paid a living wage because of IMF requirements for a tight fiscal stance and trade liberalisation'', which can prevent a government from raising revenue from trade tariffs.

Political analyst Fan saw a link between Wolfowitz's pro-war views and how he regards the poor: In Iraq, the great majority of the victims of war are the poor, while those who are better off could afford to flee to Jordan and other Arab countries. ''For such a person to be president of the World Bank is a cruel joke. But it is not surprising because in both instances (war and Bank policies), the poor are deemed to be dispensable.''

And its questionable if poor nations really benefit from World Bank loans. Net transfers (disbursements minus repayments minus interest payments) to developing countries from the Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction (IBRD), have been negative every year since 1991, pointed out the Social Watch Report 2006.

Activists in the region remember the Bank for its huge loans to Indonesia, where projects paved the way for large transnational corporations to take control and exploit natural resources. It inspired a land administration programme (LAP), which pushed for the titling of peasants' land, which activists say facilitated the takeover of farmers' land at cheap prices.

"Furthermore, they approved a loan to change the law on water to a new law protecting foreign investors in controlling the water resources. This paved the way for water privatisation through a project called Watsal (Water Resources Structural Adjustment Loan),'' says Achmad Ya'kub, a human rights activist with La Via Campesina, an international peasants' movement with its operations secretariat in Jakarta.

Because of the land privatisation and land conversions, Ya'kub told IPS that peasants have been cornered and their farmlands have become smaller and smaller -- and many have even lost their land altogether.

World Bank-inspired policies that pushed for land titling and market forces to drive agrarian reform have sparked conflict between peasants and investors, which in the Indonesian case would be either the government or the private sector. Ya'kub says the social cost of the marginalisation of farmers and peasants, the main victims, is huge, ranging from loss of livelihoods, arrests and even deaths.

Under then U.S. president Ronald Reagan, Wolfowitz was ambassador to Indonesia in the 1980s. His strong support for the dictator Suharto despite the extreme corruption and human rights violations under his administration is well known. Indonesian activists were thus dismayed when Wolfowitz was appointed World Bank president.

"When Wolfowitz was ambassador to Indonesia, he hardly spoke up for the poor,'' observed Fan. In the end, the poor farmers and peasants of Indonesia had to bear the brunt of odious debt even though they hardly benefited from it.

Now that Wolfowitz is stepping down, activists like Ya'kub say it is time for people around the world to realise that the World Bank's role is over. ''We must learn from Hugo Chavez that there is no development and democracy with the World Bank,'' he stressed. ''I hope it's not just Wolfowitz stepping down from the World Bank, but the World Bank must now 'step down' from our country and the world.'' (END/2007)

World Bank Watch: Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India (IPT - WBG)


What is the IPT - WBG?
The purpose behind the Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India (IPT-WBG) is to provide a just forum for people, who have been impacted by projects and policies funded or promoted by the WBG, to express their grievances and propose alternatives.

The IPT-WBG will conduct an in-depth examination of the WBG's influence and impact on a host of sectoral and cross-sectoral issues through a series of depositions that will be presented to a panel of eminent experts from relevant fields.

For more information and to endorse the IPT- WBG contact us at i
or visit

Need for the IPT - WBG?
The record of projects funded and promoted by the WBG in India has been far from acceptable in terms of human rights violations and environmental degradation. The time has come to examine and judge the WBG's claim that it is serving the wider public interest and reducing poverty, given its increasing impact and influence on the country's economy, as well as its educational, social and cultural fabric.
The main objectives identified for the Tribunal are;

• To dismantle the impression that the World Bank is an independent body which does not espouse the cause of any country or private agency.

• To establish the extent of the World Bank's influence on the policy-making decisions of Indian government officials.

• To establish how the World Bank's policies have aggravated poverty, incapacitated democratic structures, and promoted privatization.

What has been done so far?
At the National Consultation on Housing and the Urban Poor held in Mumbai in October 2005, where over two hundred groups participated, a call was issued to take forward this process. In order to formalize the idea, several consultations have been conducted with groups, individuals and organizations in various parts of the country.

Thereafter: A Strategy Meeting was held in Delhi on the 9th of September to establish a clear direction for the Tribunal. Around 40 groups and individuals were represented in a variety of sectors

Concept Notes for the Health, Water and other sectors have been drafted and can be found on the website along with more information about the Strategy Meeting. This was followed by a Planning Meeting for the state of Orissa which took place on September 28th in Bhubaneswar with grassroots groups and a workshop at ISF in November 2006 to generate a wider debate and discuss how WBG-IPT can support local initiatives and campaigns.

When and where will the IPT -WBG take place?
The IPT -WBG is tentatively scheduled to take place over 5 days in March - April 2007 in New Delhi. A final date and location will be determined in consultation with participating groups. Please visit for the latest information.

Who is organizing the People's Tribunal on the WBG?
The Tribunal on the WBG and its allies is visualized as a collective process that will be guided by key organizations and groups from across the country. The Tribunal will be thus structured:
1. Panel (jury) - Will hear the depositions and render judgement. Made up of distinguished individuals from within and outside of India jointly selected by the convenors, advisors and secretariat.
2. Convenors - Will play the most critical role in the process. They are key groups/ grassroot organizations and movements who are responsible for a sector or region. They will assist the participant groups in mobilizing affected people, putting together the depositions and in selecting the projects to be profiled.
3. Advisors - Individuals with expertise in the field who will guide, help with the research and assist the process.
4. Endorsing/Participating Organisations - Large spectrum of groups/grassroot organisations who will endorse and support the process.
5. Secretariat - Comprising of researchers and organizers who provide administrative and logistic support to the process and assist with research .

(The list of groups/ individuals involved till date has been appended at the end of this mailer).

How can I get involved?
The IPT-WBG is a collaborative and inclusive endeavour. We are actively seeking organizations and individuals to endorse the IPT-WBG and to participate as advisors, convenors, researchers, and interns. We are seeking monetary support to cover the costs associated with coordinating and holding the IPT-WBG. Groups and individuals interested in participating in the IPT-WBG should contact the Secretariat. We are also interested in hearing your feedback, suggestions, comments, and questions.

Feedback Form - email to the secretariat -
I/We endorse the Independent People's Tribunal on the WBG. We are not engaged by, nor do we intend to take up any consultancy work on behalf of the World Bank/Asian Development Bank ________________________________________________________

There are several levels of participation possible for the Tribunal process.. You or your organization can elect to participate as a Convenor, as an Advisor as an Endorser or Researcher.

I am interested in being a(n): Convenor Advisor Endorser Researcher

I work/am interested in working in the following sectors:

· Water
· Sovereignty
· Mining
· Toxics & Industry
· Food Security
· Education
· Urban Renewal / Urban Poor Power
· Power
· Transport
· Agriculture
· Forest & Fisheries
· Health
· Tourism
· Post Disaster
· North East
· Knowledge Provider
· Judicial Reform
· Other

Specific concerns regarding the Bank's projects or policies

Contact Information:

Name ______________________________________________________________________________________

Organization ______________________________________________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________________________________________________


Email _______________________________ Mobile _________________________

Telephone ___________________________ Fax ___________________________

Independent People's Tribunal Secretariat

c/o 4th Floor, Engineer's House, 86 Bombay Samachar Marg, Mumbai 400 023

c/o Second Floor, A 21 Jungpura Ext. New Delhi 110 014

Deepika - 0 98200 39557/ Harsh - 0 9818569021/ Preeti - 0 9871412411



Prof. Amit Bhadhuri. J. John (Centre for Education and Communication) * Nityanand Jayaraman / Madhumita Dutta (Corporate Accountability Desk) * Michelle Chawla (Dahanu Taluka Environment Welfare Association & The Dahanu Parisar BachaoSamiti) * Leo Saldanha (Environment Support Group) * Benny Kuruvilla (Focus on the Global South - India) * Devinder Sharma (Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security) * Mihir Desai (HRLN) * Wilfred D'Costa (INSAF) * Ramananda Wangkhierakpam (Intercultural Resources, Delhi) * Jan Swasthiya Abhiyan * Smitu Kothari (Lokayan) * Pratibha Shinde (Lok Sangharsh Morcha) * Prafulla Samantara (Lok Shakti Abhiyan) * Shripad Dharmadhikari (Manthan) * Medha Patkar (Narmada Bachao Andolan) * National Alliance of People's Movements * National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights * National Forum for Fishworkers * Shaktiman Ghosh (National Hawkers Federation; Ponnu Poribhan Sangram Committee) * Arvind Kejriwal (Parivartan) * Anil Sadgopal / Ambarish Rai (People's Campaign for Common School System) * Ajayan (Plachimada Solidarity Committee) * HimanshuThakkar (SANDRP) * Gururaja Budhya (Urban Research Centre) * Sachin Jain (Vikas Samvad) and others.


Nancy Alexander * Radhika Balakrishnan * Prashant Bhushan (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court) * Praful Bidwai * Prof Angana Chatterjee * Karen Coelho * Shalmali Guttal (FOCUS) * Colin Gonsalves (Human Rights Law Network (HRLN)) * Adv. K.G. Kannabiran * Souparna Lahiri * Richard Mahapatra * Prof. Deepak Nayyar * Subrata * Ward Morehouse * Sanjay Parikh (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court) * Biraj Patnaik * Dr. N. Raghuram (Reader, School of Biotechnology, GGS Indraprastha University) * E.A.S. Sharma * Kavaljit Singh (Public Interest Research Group) * Dr. M Vijayabaskar and others.

Endorsing Organisations/Institutions

Asmita (Hyderabad) * K Alaya * Bijay (Adivasi Mukti Sangathan, M.P) * Akhil Gogoi (All Assam Krishak Mukti Sangram Samitee) * Anthony Bamang (Arunachal Citizens Rights) * Avilash Roul (Bank Information Centre) * Yamini Mishra (CBGA) * CR Neelakantan * Bapi Carr (ECM) * Jiten Yumnam
(Forum for Indigenous Perspectives and Action (FIPA), Manipur) * Jimmy Dabhi (Indian Social Institute) * Umendra Dutt (Kheti Virasat Mission) * Bimal Prasad Pandia (MASS, Orissa) * Ashok Chaudhury (National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers) * B.K. Keayla (Convenor, National Working Group on Patent Laws) * Kanta Marathe/ Devjeet Nandi (Navrachna) * Gautam Bandyopadhyay (People's Alliance) * Bhagaban Majhi (Prakrutik Sampad Surakshaya Parishad) * Purushan Eloor (Periyar Malinikaran Samiti) * Ravindranath (River Basin Friends, Assam) * Arup Kumar Saikia (Rural Volunteers Centre, Assam) * TISS (Tata Institute of Social Sciences) * and others.

Deepika D'Souza *Neil Tangri * Aurelie Lopez

Harsh Dobhal * Preeti Verma * Ninglun

Do write in with your names and suggestions -