Nestle-Pakistan Report
Nestle-Pakistan Report
Nestle-Pakistan Report
Development Organisations
Swissaid • Catholic Lenten Fund
Bread for all • Helvetas
Caritas • Interchurch Aid
April 2005
ActionAid is a unique partnership of people who are fighting for a better world- a world without
poverty. Established in 1972, ActionAid works with over six million people in the developing world,
helping them achieve lasting improvements in the quality of their lives. Its mission is “to work with
poor and marginalized people to eradicate poverty by overcoming the injustice and inequity that
cause it.”
ActionAid (AAPk) has been working in Pakistan since 1992. The mission of ActionAid Pakistan is to
eradicate absolute poverty by facilitating the process of empowerment of the poor and the
marginalized. It aims to achieve this be creating, sharing and providing opportunities for greater
awareness, skills and resources to the poorest and most disadvantaged. ActionAid Pakistan has
identified themes as Food Rights & Livelihood Security, Water Rights, Peace, Emergencies, Gender,
Governance, Education, Youth, Child Rights and Labor Rights, which direct its efforts towards the
realization of the objectives.
Swiss Coalition of
Development Organizations
Swissaid • Catholic Lenten Fund
Bread for all • Helvetas
Caritas • Interchurch Aid
The Swiss Coalition of Development Organizations is the common platform for development policy
lobbying of the six leading Swiss development NGOs Swissaid, Catholic Lenten Fund, Bread for All,
Helvetas, Caritas and Swiss Interchurch Aid, with offices in Bern (headquarter), Lausanne and
Lugano. It was founded in 1971 with a view to the more effective advocacy of shared concerns. The
Swiss Coalition strives to influence Switzerland’s policies to the benefit of the poor countries and their
peoples. Its goal is sustainable development, as well as a more just, peaceful and environment-
friendly world that offers equal rights and opportunities to all. This calls for economic and political
changes – worldwide and in Switzerland. In pursuit of these goals, the Swiss Coalition engages in
active lobbying vis-à-vis politicians, the administration and the economy, as well as intensive outreach
work.
Adress: Monbijoustrasse 31, CH-3001 Berne, Tel. +41 31 390 93 30
E-mail: mail@swisscoalition.ch; www.swisscoalition.ch
ii
Acknowledgements
The reason for this case study was to contribute to a better understanding of corporate objectives and
human needs and to analyse corporate responsibilities. This research was done with the support of
Amnesty International (Swiss Section) and Swiss Coalition – an umbrella organization of Swiss
development NGOs. Nevertheless, the content of this study is only the responsibility of the author. My
foremost thanks go to Bastienne Joerchel (Swiss Coalition), Pascal Herren and Bruno Riesen (Amnesty
International) for there valuable comments and support. Among many interview and discussion partners, I
would like to offer a special thanks to Karin Astrid Siegmann (Sustainable Development Policy Institute),
Mustafa Talpur (ActionAid Pakistan) and Javaid Afzal (LEAD Pakistan) for their feedback and advice.
Finally, I would like to thank Chris Grove for his help and editing.
iii
Contents
1. Prologue.....................................................................................................................................1
2. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................3
3. Water – Global Trends and Pakistan’s Struggle .....................................................................5
3.1. Water – A Global but Scarce Good ......................................................................................5
3.2. Poverty and Access to Water in Pakistan.............................................................................5
3.2.1. Poverty and Development in Pakistan ............................................................................. 6
3.2.2. Access to Water in Pakistan ............................................................................................ 6
4. Water – A Basic Need Becomes a Millennium Development Goal......................................8
4.1. Water – An Issue on the International Agenda....................................................................8
4.2. Transforming the Millennium Development Goal on a National Level in Pakistan.........8
5. Human Right to Water............................................................................................................11
5.1. Water – A Basic Need becomes a Human Right...............................................................11
5.2. The Content of the Human Right to Water........................................................................13
5.2.1. Core obligations under the human right to water............................................................ 13
5.2.2. Violation of the human right to water.............................................................................. 14
5.3. Rights based approach to Water in Pakistan......................................................................15
6. Corporate Obligations toward the Human Right to Water...................................................16
6.1. Business’ Human Rights Obligations – Normative Principles without Implementation 16
6.2. Business’ Human Rights Self-Commitments ....................................................................16
7. Nestlé’s Self-Commitment with regard to Human Rights ...................................................18
7.1. Nestlé – The World Food Company...................................................................................18
7.2. Nestlé’s Human Rights Standards ......................................................................................18
8. Nestlé’s Bottled Water Strategy.............................................................................................20
8.1. Global Market for Bottled Water........................................................................................20
8.2. Bottled Water Market in Pakistan & Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ ................................................21
8.2.1. Bottled Water Market in Pakistan................................................................................... 21
8.2.2. Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ in Pakistan....................................................................................... 22
8.2.3. Challenges for Nestlé’s Water Policy in Pakistan........................................................... 23
9. Human Rights Concerns about Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ ............................................................25
9.1. Impact of Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ Production on Local Communities..................................25
9.1.1. Unregulated Groundwater Exploitation .......................................................................... 25
9.1.2. People’s Human Rights and Governmental and Corporate Responsibilities .................. 26
9.2. Distribution and Consumption............................................................................................27
9.3. Health Related Aspects .......................................................................................................28
10. Outlook and Recommendations.............................................................................................30
Annex I (Availability and Quality of Drinking Water).....................................................................31
Annex II (Endnotes & References) ....................................................................................................32
iv
1. Prologue
After five years of experience with ‘Pure Life’ in Pakistan, Nestlé frames its global
objectives with regard to bottled water less in terms of profit and more in relationship to
the global struggle against water shortage. In its Water Brochure, Nestlé states: “Bottled
water is not a major part of the solution to the world’s drinking water needs. However,
when no public safe water supply is available, bottled water can be a source of clean
water. Bottled water is often the consumers’ choice for a healthy beverage that gives
them a source of minerals, helps to prevent obesity, and in so doing, reduces the risk of
associated healthcare problems.”1
In February 2005, the Pakistan Standards & Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) served a
notice to the management of Nestlé in Pakistan for selling its brand ‘Pure Life’ without
proper authorisation.2 The PSQCA is demanding a costly renewal of Nestlé’s 2002
licence and its compliance with standards set out by the Pakistan Council of Research in
Water Resources (PCRWR) in 2004. Nestlé argues that PSQCA had no right to take this
action, challenging the authorities’ attempt to declare their business illegal. However, the
government is initiating legal action to seal off Nestlé’s Pakistan bottled water factory.
This story seems like a sequel of the battle between Nestlé and PCRWR in 2003. On
June 3, 2003 the Daily Times – published in Lahore – publicized that Nestlé Milkpak Ltd,
a subsidiary of Nestlé Switzerland, has claimed PKR 20 million (USD 350.000i) as
damages from both Akram Kahlown, chairman of PCRWR, and the Associated Press of
Pakistan (APP).3 The company initiated a legal action after a newspaper published an
APP story based on an interview with Mr. Kahlown, who was reported to have claimed
that Nestlé Pure Life and AVA, two brands of Nestlé’s bottled water, were contaminated
with minerals and, therefore, unfit for human consumption. Nestlé claimed that Mr
Kahlown overstepped his official jurisdiction by making frivolous, unsubstantiated and
unwarranted statements to the press, which amounted to unlawfully targeting and
damaging the reputation of the company’s water brands. Nestlé had said that their
bottled water contained the appropriate mineral balance and complied with the
standards of bottled drinking water laid down by Pakistan Standards and Quality Control
Authority (PSQCA), as well as taking into account the World Health Organization’s
(WHO) recommendations. Finally, Nestlé claimed that this false statement damaged its
standing as the world’s largest food company, which is acknowledged for its product
quality.
What has happened to Nestlé’s strategy to introduce healthy and affordable water in
regions with prospering markets but lack of safe water and more than half the population
without any access to water at all? In Pakistan, where Nestlé road-mapped its global
success story of ‘Pure Life,’ Nestlé faces one struggle after another. On December 31,
2004, the Supreme Court of Pakistan approved the decision of the Lahore High Court,
which dismissed a PKR 6.35 million (ca. USD 110.000) Pakistan Railways contract that
granted Classic Needs Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. exclusive rights to sell bottled water to railway
passengers during 2004/2005. Furthermore, the court directed the railways
i
Beside differences in exchange rates between Pakistani Rupee (PKR) and U.S. Dollar (USD) this research
calculates with an average exchange rate of PKR 57 = 1 USD.
1
administration to revoke the present contract, invite fresh bids and award the contract of
bottled water supply to a firm after examination of water by a credible laboratory. Classic
Needs Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. Is exclusively distributed Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ and is its own
brand. The Supreme Court had declared the bottled water being supplied to passengers
unfit for consumption and injurious to health. The decision of the Supreme Court was
based on two different reports.4 The report of the Pakistan Council of Scientific &
Industrial Research (PCSIR) declared that both companies were bottling clean and
healthy water. But the second report, by National Health Centre (NHC) in Islamabad,
stated that even though mineral water products by both companies were contaminated,
Nestlé water had a low risk factor while the Classic Needs water was high risk. The
Supreme Court Justices Khalilur Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher took a serious view
of the reports and observed that the firms were making the people consume poisonous
water and taking advantage of rail passengers as particularly captive buyers, as no
hygienic water was available at platforms and inside trains.5
On November 30, 2004, the Sindh High Court restrained Nestlé from initiating any
commercial or industrial activity, including setting up of a bottling plant on the 20-acre
plot leased to it by the Sindh government in the area near Karachi. The site was leased
on October 25, 2003, and the plant ready to extract 306 million litres of water annually
for the sale of 228 million litres of bottled water. The court ruled: “No civilized society
shall permit an unfettered exploitation of its natural resources”.6
Considering the critique and struggle Nestlé is facing in Pakistan, one has to ask what is
happening to the distinguished goals of “The World Food Company”.7 Hans-Dieter
Karlscheuer, director of Paris-based Perrier-Vittel SA – then Nestlé’s water division –
once said, "We can't change the world. We can only try to improve it a little".8 Nestlé’s
“improvement” was named ‘Pure Life’. In times of shrinking markets in Europe and
Northern America, Nestlé enlarged its activities in developing countries. A new brand
and kind of production were created in the late 1990’s in order to sell safe water to the
poor.
2
2. Introduction
Access to an improved drinking water supply is not only a basic need and precondition
for a healthy life; it is also a human right. "Improved" water supply technologies include:
household connection, public standpipe, borehole, protected dug well, protected spring,
and rainwater collection. "Not improved" include: unprotected well, unprotected spring,
vendor-provided water, bottled water, and tanker truck-provided water. Access to an
"improved source” also entails that the source is able to provide at least 20 litres per
capita per day at a distance no more than 1000 metres from the user’s residence.9 But
this need is not met in reality. The global water shortage of affordable and safe drinking
water is manifested in Pakistan with an estimated 44 percent of the population without
access to safe drinking water. In rural areas, up to 90 percent of the population may lack
such access.10 As one indication of the magnitude of the problem, it is estimated that
200,000 children in Pakistan die every year due to diarrhoeal diseases alone.11
Drinking bottled water reflects not just a certain way of life in the rich North but a
necessity and the only option for safe water in the South. Beside official figures, there
should be no doubt that the majority of the Pakistan’s population is exposed to the
hazard of drinking unsafe and polluted water. In an effort to improve this situation, many
consumers in Pakistan have to turn to bottled water as a first alternative to drinking
unfiltered tap water or contaminated water of other sources where no public drinking
water service exists.12 However, bottled water is a very expensive alternative and not
always healthy because of infrequent testing for contaminants and sporadic inspection
of processing plants. Bottled water should not be considered as a substitute to a
sufficient service with drinkable tap water, but it is due to lack of access to water
services or to bad quality of available resources.13 Bottled water consumption has been
steadily growing in the world for the past 30 years. It is considered as one of the most
dynamic sectors of all the food and beverage industry, where consumption in the world
increases by an average 12% each year, in spite of its excessively high price compared
to tap water.14
This case study about Nestlé’s bottled water ‘Pure Life’ will examine how the production
and distribution of one brand of a transnational corporation affect people’s life in a
developing country. In order to do so, this study will take political objectives from the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the human right to water, and specific human
rights obligations of corporations as its point of departure.
The first half of the case study will examine the situation of the poor in Pakistan with
regard to their human right to water. By doing so, the analysis will focus on causes of
water shortage, identification of obligations and examination of the capacities to meet
human rights and political commitments, such as the human right to water and the
MDGs. A human rights approach to development, in general, and the basic need for
sufficient and safe drinking water, in particular, will further lead to the identification of the
duties of corporations active in the water sector, such as Nestlé.
The second half will focus on the operation of Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ in Pakistan. This part
will examine the impact of the production of Nestlé’s bottled water on local communities
close to the production facilities. In addition, the impact of pricing and distribution on
3
poor and disadvantaged groups will be observed. By this, the study seeks to examine
concerns and benefits in order to contribute to a better understanding of corporate
objectives and human needs and to analyse corporate responsibilities.
Unfortunately, Nestlé initially refused to react to various attempts to contact them and to
discuss the findings of this research. In the final stage of this research, Nestlé continued
to put the author off, requesting a questionnaire that has still not been answered.
Nestlé’s self-commitments with regard to the social aspects of its business policies in the
water sector include: “the importance of developing long-term, mutually rewarding
relationships with other stakeholders”.15 Obviously, Nestlé refused to consider this
research as part of such a relationship. Furthermore, Nestlé undertakes in its Corporate
Business Principles – which are part of its commitment to the United Nations Global
Compact – that “as part of its broader commitment towards the good of the community,
Nestlé […] supports initiatives and fosters awareness on the importance of water
resource conservation among employees, governments, local communities, schools,
industry, consumers and other stakeholders”.16 Again, it seems that Nestlé considers
this case study neither as an initiative, nor as sufficient for awareness-building about
water resource conservation among consumers and other stakeholders. Finally, the
silence of Nestlé shows that an affected stakeholder is less important than a shareholder
or potential investor. While the first one is refused any information and comment, the
latter have “access to relevant, up-to-date and consistent information in a timely and
consistent fashion. This information should allow shareholders as well as prospective
investors to make informed judgements about the Nestlé S.A. shares.”17 Therefore, this
case study unfortunately lacks public statements, interviews and other available
resources from Nestlé.
4
3. Water – Global Trends and Pakistan’s Struggle
Water is essential for human beings to survive and develop. At the same time, water is a
scarce good, and shortage sometimes results in crises. Both facts lead to the simple
conclusion that lack of water hinders development and a dignified life. This can be
assessed from global trends, as well as from Pakistan’s national and local struggles for
better access for people to safe and sufficient drinking water.
According to figures published by the United Nations, subsidiary organisations and other
international organisations, 1.1bn people are without a sufficient access to water, and
2.4bn people have to live without adequate sanitation. Under current trends, the
prognosis is that about 3bn people of a population of 8.5bn will suffer from water
shortage by 2025. 83% of them will live in developing countries, mostly in rural areas
where even today sometimes only 20% of the population have access to a sufficient
water supply.18
This actual lack of water is opposed to the theoretical conclusion that there is enough
ground water existing in all regions of the world to guarantee an adequate water supply
for all people. According to international law, in the case of concurring water users, the
socio-economic priorities have to rest on human development and social interests of the
people.19 however, only 6% of global freshwater is used by households, while 20% is
utilized industry and another 70% by agriculture. The conclusion drawn from these
framework conditions is that water shortage and the unequal distribution of water are
global problems rather than regional problems that require international solutions.
Insufficient supply of drinking water is the main cause of diseases in developing
countries. Already in 1997, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
concluded that 2.3bn people suffer from diseases rooted in insufficient water provision
and quality. 20 More than five years later, it was estimated that 2.4bn people were
suffering from water related diseases, and the World Health Organisation reckons that
80% of all infections are traceable to poor water conditions. 5,483 people die daily of
water caused diarrhoea – 90 percent are children under five. Taking into account all
water related diseases and deaths, international organizations estimated in 2001 that
2,213,000 people died because of inadequate water supply – ten times more than the
tsunami disaster caused in December 2004.21
It is acknowledged that lacking safe and sufficient drinking water – as with other basic
needs such as food, shelter and education – is not a geographical but social problem.
Being poor or rich is mainly decided by birth, and poverty perpetuates itself from
generation to generation. Development strategies should be judged by their effort to
5
break through this vicious cycle. Single indicators, such as literacy rates or households
with access to water, are a litmus test for such an assessment.
The United Nations Human Development Report 2004 categorises Pakistan as the
"worst performer in South Asia" in terms of its Human Development Index. The Human
Development Index (HDI) focus on three measurable dimensions of human
development: living a long and healthy life, being educated and having a decent
standard of living.22 The HDI ranks Pakistan as 142nd out of 177 and one of the poorest
performers, with low human development even though the MDGs were given top priority
for development.23 Poverty in Pakistan is also gender-related. Pakistan has the worst
disparities between HDI and gender-related development goals and ranks at 120th out of
140.24
Pakistan is an Islamic Republic, whose aim is to enable its Muslim majority “to order
their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and
requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah”.25 Water is recognized
in Islamic teachings as a vital resource, of which everyone has the right to a fair share.
Following the Hadith, it is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “Muslims
have common share in three (things): grass, water and fire”. 26 Furthermore, the Holy
Quran warns human beings against unfair distribution of common goods and the
majority of scholars agree that Islam forbids speculation, manipulation and unbalance
profit with a common good such as water.27
In 1995, UNDP counted Pakistan as country having among the highest water potential
per person out of 130 countries that should dramatically improve its water situation to
overcome the current crisis and prevent future ones.28 Obviously, Pakistan failed to
make any improvement. In 2003, the United Nations dropped Pakistan’s ranking,
because its total renewable water resources per capita per year have been estimated as
114th out of 180 countries.29
Only three percent of Pakistan’s sweet water resources are used for household
purposes and drinking.30 Therefore the debate about access to water in Pakistan is
dominated by irrigation disputes, mega-projects of dams and canals, and climate
change.31 The focus is on water for agriculture rather than for people. 32 This production-
oriented perspective continues in the debate about groundwater use and extraction. It is
estimated that surface water meets only 75-80 percent of crop water requirements. As a
result, groundwater is merely seen as a reserve water source for irrigation and food
production, as well as the major factor for the growth of agricultural production in the late
20th century. 33
With regard to the availability of safe and sufficient drinking water, Pakistan lacks
reliable statistics. While data about the availability of water and field studies about water
6
quality exist, there is no sufficient data that take both into account. Official data about the
access to drinking water vary between 60 and 90 percent of households. In rural areas –
where a decline of households with access to water is documented34 – figures about
availability differ between 10 and 53 percent. Differences in these statistics mainly
emerge from the inclusion or exclusion of households that rely on privately owned wells
and supply systems.35
In addition, having access to water in Pakistan is not similar with having access to safe
and sufficient water supply. Pakistan’s water quality ranks as 80th out of 122 nations.36
Pipe water in Pakistan is contaminated either because of leakages with all sorts of
bacteria or due to geological conditions and insufficient purification, with abnormally high
levels of arsenic and elevated fluoride. 37 Water, extracted by hand pumps – the major
water source in rural areas – is mainly brackish water and not sufficient for drinking and
cooking. The Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources (PCRWR) estimates
that almost 50 percent of urban water supply is insufficient for drinking and personal
use.38
This research takes data about availability and quality into relation and concludes that
an average of 25.61 percent of Pakistan’s 159 million inhabitants have access to safe
and sufficient drinking water (see Annex I). This calculation shows that in rural areas
only 23.5 percent and in urban areas approximately 30 percent can use their source of
water without jeopardizing their health. These findings come close to a conclusion by
independent experts who predicted that already in 2001, with prevailing consumption
rates and a population growth of 4 million people per year, one out of three people in
Pakistan would face critical shortages of water, "threatening their very survival".39
The Government of Pakistan estimated with regard to diarrhoea that this mainly water-
related disease accounts for 14 percent of illnesses for children under five and for seven
percent of all disease in people age five and older. 40 The Pakistan Council of Research
and Water Resources (PCRWR) assesses that 40 percent of all reported illnesses are
water-related. 41 It is estimated that 200,000 children in Pakistan die every year due to
diarrhoeal diseases alone.42 Unsafe water affects mainly rural and urban poor, who
suffer above the average from sickness and water related diseases.43
7
4. Water – A Basic Need Becomes a Millennium Development Goal
Deficient water supply is mainly a local issue rooted in national omissions to address the
needs of the people in a sufficient manner. In order to address these issues properly,
international advice, cooperation and standard-setting is needed.
International conferences dealing with water and related issues such as health,
environment and development date back to the late 1970’s. Cornerstones of these
international developments include the Water Conference in Mar del Plata 1977, which
declared the access to water as a basic need 44; the International Decade of Water and
Sanitation (1981-1990), that had the aim to provide everybody with access to save
drinking water by 200045; and the declaration of March 21 as the World Day for Water. 46
Although these international efforts missed the goal of providing access to everybody,
they mobilized resources to provide additional 600-800 million people with access to
water. After decades of international debates on the improvement of water supply, it can
be stated that the political declarations, which have been repeated time and again, have
been followed only by limited action and minimal improvement of water supplies.
Therefore, at the end of the Global Consultation on Safe Water and Sanitation, it was
concluded that some water for all is better than enough water for few.47
The main shift in perspective came with the Millennium Assembly in 2000, and its
declaration of access to water and sanitation as a Millennium Development Goal. 48
Adopting the Millennium Declaration, the international community committed itself to
halve the number of people without sufficient access to safe water and to wastewater
treatment by 2015. To meet this MDG requires to connect around 275,000 people a day
until 2015 globally. 49 The Millennium Development Goals share a common motivation
and constitute a new and ongoing commitment to sustainable and balanced
development.50 While in the 1990s development was fast for some nations while under-
privileging others, the Millennium Development Goals try to leave no nation behind. But
taking recent development and progress into account, the prognoses after the first five
out of fifteen years seems to be that the goal of providing access to safe drinking water
will be met only in South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean.51
As outlined about with regard to distribution of water supply and water-related diseases,
the poor bear the main burden of underdevelopment in Pakistan. It is estimated that
water related diseases cause annual national income losses of USD 380-883 million – or
approximately 0.6-1.44 percent of GDP.52 The underlying socio-economic and market
forces, institutions and power structures discriminate against the rural and urban poor
8
and deprive them not only of their actual or possible income but also of their ability to
develop. Therefore it is suggested that development has to go hand-in-hand with
empowerment of the poor by changing of market and supply structures for public goods,
such as water.53
The request for access of the poor to markets, institutions and services also meets the
demand of the MDGs. Translating the globally defined MDG targets into action requires
an operational framework at the national level. Such a framework should set out a
country-owned, cross-cutting agenda aimed at sustained, shared growth and public
action towards achieving the MDGs. Such a national strategy should be enshrined in
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) which constitute the primary strategic and
implementation vehicle to reach the MDGs.54 Although Pakistan’s PRSP makes
references to the overall objective of the MDG of poverty reduction, it fails to meet
concrete proposals to meet MDG 7 (Target 10) of providing safe and sufficient access to
water to half of the population without such service. This is compounded by Pakistan’s
development strategy, which focuses more on macroeconomic issues and economic
growth than on poverty reduction and the situation of the poor and their equal
participation in political and economic affairs.55 The reason for the insufficient balance
between poverty reduction at the micro-level and reforms and objectives with regard to
the macro-level might be found in the compliance with the World Bank’s request for a
PRSP and their objectives in relationship to macro-economic issues, such as Foreign
Direct Investment.56 With regard to water, the International Financial Institutions
assessed Pakistan’s PRSP as needing more reliable data, lacking a consistent water
policy and overall missing realism. 57 Unfortunately, these missing essentials are not
provided within Pakistan’s Water Sector Strategy, which was even written by highly paid
consultants of the Asian Development Bank.
As shown above, the Government of Pakistan lacks a strategy in its PRSP to meet this
goal. On the one hand, it admitted in its PRSP that improving health outcomes requires
– among other issues – addressing the lack of access to safe drinking water and
inadequate sanitation. The core objective in this regard should lie in the increase of
sustainable access to safe drinking water in rural areas.58 On the other hand, the steady
link to health issues is too short-sighted. The Pakistani Government acknowledged the
necessity of improving the performance of the health sector significantly to ensure good
progress towards reaching MDGs, but at the same time it admitted officially that it would
only spend 0.60 percent of its budget to do so.59 While the main focus is on prevention,
the PRSP never speaks about how to improve the disastrous and insufficient supply with
safe drinking water.
Development needs sufficient resources. It is estimated that the MDGs require a low-
income country, such as Pakistan, to increase its investment in public services by four
percent; based on an estimate that five percent is already spent in these sectors.60 In a
draft PRSP, the Government of Pakistan confessed that besides knowledge, a PRSP
needs adequate resources, thus its main focus is on macroeconomic stabilisation
policies, such as controlling the fiscal deficit, generating resources. Therefore, poverty
reduction remains a formidable task, since less than four percent of GDP has been
allocated to poverty-focused sub-sectors in recent years, and expenditures
characterized as “development” have been less than three percent of GDP.
9
United Nations agencies calculate an additional need of USD 50bn. to globally reach the
MDGs in general, including USD 12.6bn. for water and sanitation.61 The World Panel on
Financing Water Infrastructure estimated in its final report a necessary, additional
investment of USD 10bn. per year for lower standards and USD 17bn. per year for urban
standards of water access.62 Since Pakistan lacks a national policy for the MDG target
of water access, there are no resources available that estimate how much this MDG
would cost. Nevertheless, Pakistan calculated already the costs for its Vision 2025 to
bring access to water to 96 percent of urban and 75 percent of rural population. The
Government of Pakistan estimates the cost in urban areas of USD 50.66bn. and USD
21.57bn in rural areas.63 In another calculation, the Government of Pakistan’s Clean
Drinking Water Initiative estimates that the costs for combating poor water quality in
selected cities at PKR 180 million (USD 3.16 million) in the first three years and
additional PKR 35,48 million (USD 622’500) afterwards.64 Taking into consideration that
this calculation is founded on the wrong presumption that 60 percent, instead of an
actual 30 percent, in urban areas and 53 percent, instead of an actual 23.5 percent, in
rural areas have access to safe drinking water, one might double these calculations
about the estimated costs in order to find the real amount of required resources (see
Annex I).
Available resources nevertheless show that the allocations of public resources for key
infrastructure sectors such as agriculture, water irrigation, water supply and sanitation
are less than one percent of GDP. Estimates regarding expenditures for water and
sanitation differ between 0.14 and 0.16 percent. At the federal level, a total of 491 million
PKR (USD 8.6 million) was spent, and including all provincial Governments, a total of
4.176bn PKR (USD 73.26 million) was spent for water supply and sanitation.65 This is
less than 0.5 percent of all expenditures in the fiscal year 2003-04, compared with
180.5bn PKR (USD 3.127bn.) or a 20.8 percent share for the military budget.66 Finally,
public spending on water supply and sanitation at the federal level and in total is further
declining by more than 40 percent in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2004-05. In this
regard, the Pakistani Government admitted that there is a need to allocate sufficient
resources – without saying where they should come from. 67 In fact, the government
admitted that more than 40 percent of available development resources are lying
unutilized, due to 'capacity constraints' of various federal government agencies.68
Finally, the new budget for projects in the water sector again focus on irrigation projects,
while new projects related to drinking water and sanitation are not planned at the federal
or provincial level.
To sum up the financial situation of Pakistan and its impact on the enjoyment of basic
needs, one has to conclude that economic growth is necessary but not sufficient for
human development. The assessment of UNDP from 1995, that Pakistan’s uneven
distribution of income and assets - as well as high growth rates - failed to translate into
improvements in peoples’ lives, is today more applicable than ever.69 What stands at the
end is the privatization of poverty and profit. With lack of drinking water, Pakistan’s poor
have a choice between becoming indebted due to hospital costs or buying bottled water
as the only ‘safe’ source for their basic needs.
10
5. Human Right to Water
Human rights and human development are two sides of the same coin. A human rights-
based approach provides both a vision of what development should strive to achieve,
and a set of tools and essential references. In 1993, governments acknowledged at the
United Nations World Conference on Human Rights that “while development facilitates
the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify
the abridgement of internationally recognised human rights”.70 What results from this
statement is that a rights-based approach to development distinguishes between
inability and unwillingness. As shown above, Pakistan spends officially approximately 80
times more into its military than on the provision of water and sufficient sanitation
facilities to its people.
If injustices and discrimination in society are the main reasons for poverty, then as an
effective operational mechanism, the human rights-based approach71 to development
demands:
• Participation and transparency in decision-making – implies making participation
throughout the development process a right and the obligation of the state and other
actors to create an enabling environment for participation of all stakeholders.
• Non-discrimination – implies that equity and equality cut across all rights and are the
key ingredients for development and poverty reduction.
• Empowerment – implies empowering people to exercise their human rights through the
use of tools such as legal and political action to make progress in more conventional
development areas.
• Accountability of actors – implies accountability of public and private institutions and
actors to promote, protect and fulfil human rights and to be held accountable if these are
not enforced.
Despite the minimal practical impact of the great number of world conferences,
declarations and action programmes, this discourse has sensitised governments and
international actors with respect to the issue of water shortage and the human right to
water. Because of this sensitisation, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the United
Nations have been discussing the issue of water shortage increasingly from the
standpoint of other endangered human rights, such as the right to food, health, shelter,
education and development.
A human right can be seen as a universal and indivisible standard that provides equality
and outlaws discrimination. Human rights call for participation and inclusion, guided by
accountability and the rule of law. The protection of a human right, such as the human
right to water, starts with the definition of the normative demand of the right by setting of
internationally agreed standards. These norms have to be implemented nationally and
might be overseen and guided internationally. This international monitoring and
11
implementation functions either within the treaty-based, quasi-juridical proceedings and
guidance of international treaty bodies, such as the UN Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights,72 or by the Charter-based general mandate of the United Nations
for human rights protection. Within the latter, the General Assembly and its subsidiaries,
such as the Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-
Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights are able to make
recommendations73 and to encourage the progressive development of international law
as part of the Charter-based human rights protection mechanisms.74
The advantage of the human rights approach is that needs must be satisfied while
human rights must be respected, protected and implemented. It is not absolutely
necessary for needs to be satisfied by means of legal (human) rights. However, by
recognising the human right to water, decision makers and actors, whose decisions
have an impact on the access and accessibility of water, are responsible for satisfying
this need to the greatest possible extent. The benefit of access to water and sanitation
as a human right is that one enlarges the political and economic debates about needs to
an international discourse of standard setting and national and international
implementation, as well as monitoring.
This socio-economic priority of individual access to water for development and human
dignity becomes even more important if different water uses stand in competition. The
human right to water lays the decision about rival water uses in the hands of the people
who need access to water and sanitation most. In other words, the human right to water
shifts the participation from a merely political decision about socioeconomic priorities to
an economic democracy with the human being in its centre. The human rights approach
deconstructs power relationships, such as economic and political interests, that hinder
the satisfaction of basic needs. By recognizing a basic need as a human right, exercised
political power becomes legitimized if its objective is the fulfilment of human rights, and
economic power is legitimized as long as it does not obstruct the individual or collective
satisfaction of human rights.
The human rights approach to basic needs urges public authorities to provide a legal
framework that serves economic interests as well as socioeconomic priorities for human
development. In order to enable concerned people to participate in decision-making
processes about water issues the human rights approach, linked with the notion of
democracy, calls for certain information about objectives and means within public and
private water policies. Furthermore people have to be empowered to practically
participate within public and economic affairs on equal footing. In addition, the human
rights approach introduces accountability. Rights entail responsibilities, so the human
right to water calls for holding actors with influence on access to water and sanitation
accountable.
Finally, the human rights approach to basic needs highlights that the core obligations of
the human right to water – which serve as the basic framework that is necessary to
provide a minimum standard of living – are regarded as compulsory norms (jus cogens)
of the international law. This means that provisions on human rights become inalienable
components of the law that applies to everyone (erga omnes). Thus, any violating
provisions are null and void.
12
5.2. The Content of the Human Right to Water
The normative demand for the Human Right to Water is derived from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.75 It implicitly recognized the right to drinking water and
sanitation in article 25 (1), which states that “everyone has the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care…” It is restated in Article 11 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as part of the right of everyone to an
adequate standard of living for himself and his family. 76 In previous comments by the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,77 as well as in various human
rights protection mechanisms, the human right to water is recognized as precondition for
other human rights – such as the human right to live, to appropriate nutrition and
sufficient medical care.
Apart from being the precondition for other human rights, the human right to water has
its own contents and protective duty. As outlined in General Comment Number 15 by the
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights78, the Human Right to Water
aims to guarantee that all people have the right to non-discriminatory and fair access to
safe, sufficient and affordable drinking water in order to satisfy their personal needs
(such as the preparation of food and the use of water for sanitary facilities and for
domestic consumption). Safe drinking water means that the water quality must not
jeopardise peoples’ health. Affordable water means that the expenditure for water must
not jeopardise the fulfilment of other basic needs that are guaranteed by human rights –
such as the right to education and food.
In addition to the function of being a precondition for other human rights, further rights
are derived from the human right to water, which are considered a prerequisite to
actually implement the right to water. These are, among others: the right to have access
to existing water supply systems without being discriminated against; the ban on
destroying or separating existing water supply system;, the right to have priority over
industrial or agro-industrial water use; the right to be supported in case of financial
problems; and the right to information and participation in national and local water
policies. If water is supplied by private companies, there is also the right to governmental
regulation in order to guarantee that these private companies comply with the duties
stipulated by the human right to water.
The benefit of defining the basic need for sufficient water as a human right is that
general obligations and particular duties ensue from such a qualification. These duties
comprise among others:
§ the duty of a state to respect, protect and implement the human right to water;
§ the duty of a state to respect the human right to water in other countries, i.e. not to
interfere with the fulfilment of other governments’ duties to respect the right to water;
13
§ the duty of a state to contribute to the fulfilment of the human right to water in other
countries by means of international cooperation;
§ the duty of a state to prevent and stop violations of the human right to water and to
make no decisions that jeopardise the fulfilment of the human right to water in one’s
own country or in other countries. This can be done within the framework of affiliation
in international organisations;
§ the duty of international organisations to respect the human right to water and to
contribute to its fulfilment by means of international cooperation;
§ the duty of non-state actors, such as companies or individual persons, to respect the
human right to water and to support its implementation within their own scope of
action.
These duties should all be stipulated in a national water strategy. This strategy ought to
be based on human rights in general and on the human right to water in particular. It
should assign governmental and institutional responsibilities to the duties mentioned
above.
With respect to governments’ fundamental freedom of choice regarding when to take
steps or to develop political approaches, the human right to water has core obligations
which are not subject to this principle of free choice. These core obligations must be
ensured even in times of scarce resources or in a state of emergency. Core obligations
include the most basic forms of the Human Right to Water such as:
§ non-discriminatory and regular access to a minimum of safe drinking water for
personal and domestic use and
§ access to simple – yet hygienically acceptable – wastewater disposal and sanitary
infrastructure.
As described above, a benefit of describing the basic need of access to safe water as a
human right is the relationship between the rights holder and the duty bearer. The rights
of the one correlate with the obligations of the other. If the specific duties which arise
from the general obligations are not fulfilled, the clear definition of the rights and the
duties under the human right to water makes it easy to describe violations of the human
right and to hold the relevant actors responsible.
From this perspective, countries violate the human right to water when they do not act in
good faith and when they fail to explain why they do not comply with their core
obligations. A decisive factor in determining whether such a violation has taken place or
not is an assessment of how resources have been deployed. If a state has not deployed
a maximum of available resources to guarantee a basic supply of drinking water, to
ensure that access to the existing systems is non-discriminatory, or to prevent
companies from establishing an unfair price system and excessive charges, the human
right to water has been violated. Violations of the human right to water on part of the
state may also be manifested indirectly. Among these indirect violations are the lacks of
14
laws to regulate corporate interests in the water sector, the insufficient enforcement of
existing laws, or the lack of a national water strategy. The state violates its protective
duties if it fails to stop individual persons, groups, companies or other non-state actors
from interfering. The states duty to respect the human rights in other countries is violated
if there are no regulations concerning the use of water resources by corporations and,
as a result, these resources are used to business’ benefit. The duty to international
cooperation is violated if developed countries do not aim at reducing the developing
countries’ debt burden in order to improve their water supply and sanitary infrastructure.
The corporate obligation to respect the human right to water is violated, if it interferes
directly with people’s access to and use of water. Furthermore, any collaboration with
governmental agencies that jeopardizes the right to water of the individual or a group
constitutes a human rights violation. Finally, corporations that do not protect or
contribute to the fulfilment of the right to water within their respective spheres violate this
human right.
The constitution of Pakistan protects the life of its people and obliges the State to secure
the well-being of the people and to provide for all citizens, within the available resources
of the country, facilities for adequate livelihood and basic necessities of life.79 In 1994,
the Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreted the constitutionally protected right to life and
dignity to include the right to a healthy environment.80 Furthermore, the State is urged to
promote, with special care, the economic interests of poorer classes or areas.81 With
regard to rights and interests in water, any individual has the right to complain about
actual or proposed executive or legislative acts and failures of any authorities with
respect to the use, distribution or control of water. 82 With regard to the access to safe
drinking water the Supreme Court of Pakistan specified in another case in 1994, that
mining companies have violated the rights of citizens by polluting local drinking water
supplies. The Court expanded Art. 9 of the right to life and said: “the right to have
unpolluted water is a right of every person, wherever he lives.” 83
15
6. Corporate Obligations toward the Human Right to Water
Human rights obligations – such as the human right to water – are the primary
responsibility of states. With regard to activities of corporations the obligation to protect
requires states to prevent third parties – such as corporations – from interfering in any
way with the enjoyment of the right to water. Among other factors, this obligation
includes adopting the necessary and effective legislative and other measures to restrain,
for example, corporations from denying equal access to adequate water or polluting or
inequitably extracting from water resources.84 Furthermore, governments should take
appropriate steps to ensure that corporations are aware of, and consider the importance
of, the right to water in pursuing their activities.85
In addition, corporations have their own obligations with regard to human rights, where
governments are failing to meet their regulatory and guiding obligations or in situations
where corporations are acting independently due to economic power or market position.
Within their respective spheres of activity and influence, the secondary obligation to
promote, secure the fulfilment of, respect, ensure respect of and protect human rights
recognized in international as well as national law.86 In this regard, transnational
corporations shall respect economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and
political rights and contribute – among others – to the realization of the right to food and
drinking water and shall refrain from actions which obstruct or impede the realization of
those rights.87 When distributing basic services – such as water – corporations shall
ensure equality of opportunity and treatment for the purpose of eliminating discrimination
based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin,
social status, indigenous status, disability, age or other status.88 In addition, in their
market operation, corporations shall act in accordance with fair business, marketing and
advertising practices and shall take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and quality
of the goods and services they provide and shall not produce, distribute, market, or
advertise harmful or potentially harmful products for use by consumers.89 Finally,
corporations shall generally conduct their activities in a manner that contributes to the
wider goal of sustainable development.90
Beside these normative demands of human rights obligations, corporations which are
based in a member state of the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and
Development (OECD) are obliged to follow the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises voluntarily. 91 The Guidelines include an important provision specifying that
enterprises should: “Respect the human rights of those affected by their activities
consistent with the host government’s international obligations and commitments.”92 The
OECD’s Guidelines are the only comprehensive rules that governments have endorsed
16
so far in which they commit themselves to help solve problems arising with corporations.
The Guidelines represent the commitment of adhering governments to make
recommendations to multinational companies operating in or from their territories.93
Although the Guidelines are not be binding in a strict legal sense, they demand
observance wherever a company operates on a voluntary basis.94
Voluntary approaches with regard to human rights are either incorporated into the
policies of a business or occur under the umbrella of international organizations, such as
the United Nations Global Compact.95 But different dimensions of corporate compliance
with human rights obligations – often labelled “Corporate Accountability” or “Corporate
Social Responsibility” – have to be distinguished. 96 The first dimension is legal
compliance, e.g. obedience to existing tax, labour, environmental or human rights law.
With regard to Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life,” compliance with quality standards requires legal
compliance, in order to meet peoples’ human rights. The second dimension can be
called strategic corporate responsibility, since its main aim is a modern structure of the
corporation and a sustainable presence in the market. Mainly labour relations and
security within the production process, as well as risk management, are applied within
this second dimension. This dimension can be important for the human rights of the
work process and labour-related human rights, such as health and education. Thirdly,
the dimension of remoulding competitive advantage intends to secure and enlarge
market performance via public relations, incorporation of general codes of conduct and
institutionalisation of cooperation with states authorities and civil society. In this
dimension, consumer interests about production conditions and normative expectations
of non-governmental organisations play a major role. As it will be shown below, Nestlé’s
main activities with regard to human rights, such as the membership in the United
Nations Global Compact and its self commitment to human rights and sustainable
development fall into this dimension. In addition, Nestlé efforts in Pakistan to educate
farmers for enhancing milk production can be counted in this dimension.
Since the first three dimensions mainly have to do with risk management, one can argue
that whenever a human right has a market value or is covered by domestic law, it can be
enforced by one of them. But due to a lack human rights-based regulation in Pakistan,
the fourth dimension of philanthropy gains major importance, where corporations
contribute to a better human rights environment without any side effect towards their
own business. Nestlé’s activities in this regard include its initiative to improve the
standard of living of the people and provide them clean drinking water. 97
All dimensions have in common that the implementation of human rights obligations is a
question of selectivity by governments, corporations or civil society because human
rights remain voluntary. One can say that business’ human rights obligations are only
partly implemented by law and partly addressed as moral duties within voluntary
concepts of corporate social responsibilities. In an environment like Pakistan’s investor
friendly deregulation, human rights are not the main objective. In these cases, a gap
exists between the normative demand of the human right to water and its observance by
the government and corporations.
17
7. Nestlé’s Self-Commitment with regard to Human Rights
In an environment where human rights in general and the human right to water in
particular are left aside in general politics and regulatory efforts, the impact of business’
activities on human rights depends on the acceptance of human rights by the
corporation itself. As shown above, compliance with human rights is either incorporated
in business strategies or in commitments to international standards.
In 1998, Nestlé first published its Corporate Business Principles, which were
subsequently revised in 2002 and 2003. These principles lay out Nestlé’s basic
commitments to corporate social responsibility and sustainable development, which
have to be upheld in any sector of activity.106 These principles include Nestlé’s
commitments to United Nations Global Compact. Nestlé sees the Global Compact not
18
as regulatory regime or a code of conduct, “but as platform and forward-looking forum
for the exchange of good practices in order to achieve actual progress in creating a
more prosperous and sustainable world.”107 Nestlé further sees the Global Compact as a
forum of discussion about which human rights principles work for corporations and which
do not. In this regard, Nestlé S.A. wants to lead this dialogue “with those actually
concerned”, i.e. with people in the developing world, who are working with Nestlé as
employees, suppliers, partners and community members.108 Apart from their self-
appointment as a leader in this dialogue, Nestlé has not sent any Communication on
Progress to the United Nations Global Compact office in New York. 109 Critics argue that
Nestlé’s membership in the United Nations Global Compact is just another part of its PR
and image campaign, meant to make rich customers in the North feel good.110
Apart from the discursive elaboration of human rights principles in the Global Compact,
Nestlé recognizes that human rights are foremost addressed to Governments but also
acknowledged its own responsibilities by applying the United Nations Declaration of
Human Rights111 within its sphere of direct influence.112 With regard to other
international recommendations and human rights standards, Nestlé incorporates them
on a selective basis related to their relevance for its operations. Among other standards,
Nestlé directly applies certain standards of the International Labour Organization and the
World Health Organization. With regard to other relevant commitments and
recommendations for voluntary self-regulation, Nestlé requests consultation or
participation of industrial interest and lobby groups – such as the International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC) – in these standard settings, before it endorses them itself.113
Finally, Nestlé uses the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises as a reference
point for its Corporate Business Principles.
In addition to its direct commitments to human rights, Nestlé stresses its responsibility as
the world’s leading food and beverage company, as well as the world leader in bottled
waters, towards the sustainable use of water resources.114 Apart from the pledge to
human rights within its own sphere of operation, Nestlé links its bottled water policy with
the MDG to halve the number of people without access to safe drinking water or basic
sanitation.115 Unfortunately Nestlé fails to directly apply this objective as well as its self-
commitment to human rights to its bottled water policy. Nestlé fails to incorporate a
holistic approach to its operations in the water sector and its use of water as resource for
production. The short-sighted perspective to water from the angle of sustainable
management ignores a human rights approach to water. Nestlé’s water policy ends with
the statement: “Water is a top priority for Nestlé – and always will be”.116 But it is open to
interpretation what this means to the human rights of people affected by water extraction
and the in-affordability of its bottled water for the poor.
19
8. Nestlé’s Bottled Water Strategy
Nestlé forecasts that bottled water will continue being the fastest growing beverage
category. In 2003, Nestlé Water’s organic growth was 9.1 percent, but in developing
countries, it was 13.6 percent. In its Management Report 2003, Nestlé expected the
water sector to continue growing, with markets outside of North America and Europe
contributing significant volume and profitability.117 Nestlé sees the bottled water market
as a rapidly expanding market, with one-third of the total volume of the refreshment
beverage market and the highest annual growth rates. Bottled water is the most dynamic
segment, and sustained growth patterns forecast a doubling of the bottled water market
by 2012.118 These expectations by Nestlé reflect a global trend in bottled water, a market
in which Nestlé would like to become one of the major players. In 2004, Nestlé showed
that its strategy was to acquire greater market shares in developing countries, in order to
compensate for possible losses and stagnation in developed countries. In its
presentation of its Financial Statement 2004, Nestlé announced that despite a negative
organic growth of -8.4 in Europe, Nestlé was able to balance this with organic growth
rates in North America of 9.7 percent and good performances elsewhere in the world,
maintaining 0.6 percent growth. Nestlé owes its satisfaction to other regions in the world,
especially in Africa and the Middle East, where Nestlé Waters maintained a double-digit
growth rate of 17.7 percent, thanks to solid local partnerships and the development of
Nestlé Pure Life.
It is estimated that bottled water consumption has grown exponentially over the past ten
to fifteen years. Available statistics show that consumption of bottled water in countries
with available safe tap water, e.g. North America and Europe, increased from 20 up to
80 percent between 2000 and 2003 and is lead by an average consumption of 112 litres
per capita in Europe.119 In 2003, for example, global bottled water companies produced
153.1bn. litres of water, an increase in production of 27 percent compared to 2000. This
reflects a production value in sales of USD 45.8bn. The world's bottled water companies
are lead by transnational corporations like Nestlé, Danone (owner of brands like Evian),
Coca Cola or Pepsi. This means that the bottled water industry has literally created its
own water culture, pursuing costumers – for example in the US – to pay up to 10,000
times more for bottled water than for tap water.120 Nestlé calls this culture one of “health,
wellness and pleasure” in which bottled water also serves “increasing mobile
lifestyles”.121
But apart from the “bottled water culture”, bottled water is one of the few sources of safe
drinking water in developing countries. Economic development and globalization work
together to meet demands for safe drinking water by a new middle class. Therefore,
since 1998, growth rates of up to 50 percent yearly are common in countries in Asia, the
Transcaucasus, Middle East and North Africa. Global consultants, like Zenith, report that
total sales reached 25,270 million litres in 2000, more than double the level of 1995. The
Asian region now represents 23% of global consumption, with its largest markets in
20
China, Indonesia and Thailand.122 Nestlé directs its objectives in this market segment,
“where the natural mineral water culture is less apparent” to the question of bottled water
as a safe alternative for the lack of safe tap water. 123
21
“Sparkletts” holds 12 percent and another local brand “BSW” has an estimated five
percent market share.134
In regard to the dynamic prospects of Pakistan’s bottled water market, it is not surprising
that Nestlé wanted to take shares of it. In its mission statement, Nestlé concludes that its
brand ‘Pure Life’ is the “base of operations to meet the need of the continent's emerging
nations for clean, good-tasting water in convenient sizes and packages to satisfy a
family's daily requirements”.135 The development of Nestlé’s market share, in the bottled
water market in Asia, is closely linked to its leading world-brand ‘Pure Life’. Now
available in 17 countries and highly successful in Uzbekistan, Turkey, Jordan, Thailand
and the Philippines and Argentina, the brand was also launched in United Arab Emirates
and Saudi Arabia, in 2003.136 But this worldwide business began in 1998, in Pakistan.
Nestlé started its water business in 1969, with a 30 percent stake in the Société
Générale des Eaux Minérales de Vittel. It acquired a controlling interest in SGEMV in
January 1992, and went on in May of the same year to buy out the entire Perrier Group.
In the same year, the group launched mineral Water “Valvert” as a novelty in five
different countries. In 1997, its market presence was worldwide, and the acquisition of
‘San Pellegrino’ gave it leadership in the Italian market. But theses initial steps under
local brands were over in 1998, when Nestlé – for the first time in its history – associated
its name with bottled water as ‘Nestlé Pure Life’.137 In April 2002, Nestlé renamed its
water business as Nestlé Waters, which now represents 10 percent of its sales. Today,
Nestlé Waters is established in 130 countries and markets about 77 different brands.138
The decision to invent a new brand and production method was made in 1997, and
road-mapped in field test in Ozarka (Texas, USA). The concept was to extract
groundwater and, after purification and addition of minerals, to sell it as an affordable
product for daily use. The concept was a blueprint for a global production network. The
implementation started when Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ was launched in Pakistan, and soon
appeared in Brazil, followed by Argentina, and now globally. 139 In six months, ‘Pure Life’
took over 50 percent of the country’s bottled water market, and only a year after the set
up of the first production plant in Lahore, Nestlé had installed more than 15,000 shops
and a country-covering distribution network. Nestlé’s smartest idea was the use of
ground water instead of water from springs. While the latter water sources are highly
regulated in Pakistan, ground water lacks regulation and proper monitoring. Selling a
public good became similar to the permission to print money.
The aggressive market strategies of Nestlé went astray when “awareness seminars”
about bad water conditions turned out to be counterproductive. Nestlé asked its Lahore
ad agency, Interflow Communications Ltd., to organize public information events about
water hygiene issues. Participating officials of health and water agencies announced
that tests had determined that urban water was unsafe for drinking and even existing
bottled water was unhealthy. Nestlé discontinued the seminars immediately after it was
reproached for unethical marketing practices. For instance, a representative from the
Lahore Water Supply Company alleged that Nestlé was “misleading the people to make
22
money”.140 Regardless of the discussion and temporary fall back from Nestlé, it became
clear that bad news was also good news, and Nestlé gained public attention as a safe
option for bottled water. In the end, Nestlé successfully stepped into the market and
filled a need, but turned water from a danger into a luxury. Apart from the production of
‘Pure Life’ in Lahore, Nestlé acquired major share holdings in both AVA and Fontalia in
2001, in order to expand its house and operating services. AVA is produced in Karachi
and Islamabad, while Fontalia is produced in Karachi, where it enjoys strong holding in
the bulk water service.141
While Nestlé’s highly industrialized extraction of ground water was soon opposed in
other parts in the world, 142 in Pakistan, its business went smoothly unquestioned. The
only visible critique came from outside, mainly from anti-globalization activists from
developed countries.143
After five years of operation, Nestlé faced its first opposition when it announced that it
would build a second production plant in Karachi. On October 25, 2003, the Shaheed
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology sent a writ petition to the Sindh
High Court (Karachi), saying that the 20 acres leased out to Nestlé were carved out of
the 300 acres of land allotted to it previously. The lawsuit has been joined by Sindh
Institute of Urology & Transplantation, Aga Khan Hospital and Medical College
Foundation, Sindh Madressahtul-Islam, Newport Institute of Communication &
Economics, Sir Syed University of Engineering & Technology, Shaukat Khanum
Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, and Ziauddin Medical University — all
land allottees in the said area. The property is located in an area spread over 15,500
acres, given to 30 different parties, believed to be designated for various educational
and health purposes, and declared “Education City Karachi”. Nestlé bought the property
for a price of PKR 500’000, double the price paid by the other parties, with the intention
to invest USD 10 million and extract 306 million litres of water annually, for the sale of
228 million litres of bottled water. Ironically, the plant was not planned to meet the needs
of the people of Karachi or the South of Pakistan, but for US forces at Afghanistan’s
Kandahar Air Base.144 The plaintiffs argued that Nestlé’s industrial ambitions defeated
the very purpose of the area.145 Nestlé argued that the property was allotted after
approval of the provincial cabinet and the department of industries. Furthermore, Nestlé
claimed at the end of the dispute that the area was never declared for a single, non-
industrial purpose, and the company presented various public officials to promote this
position. The plaintiffs, however, could prove that the area was dedicated to education
and health services since 1999, and the Sindh High Court (Karachi) held that water
extraction by the proposed bottling plant would “diminish water deposits in the aquifers
rapidly and shall adversely affect the plaintiffs' right to use the underground water
according to their genuine needs”.146 The case is still open, regarding the plant and the
investment, since Nestlé continues to legally challenge the decision of the Sindh High
Court (Karachi). Nevertheless, one has to keep Nestlé’s self-commitment in mind,
namely that it “consult[s] with local communities on water issues”, which was obviously
not the case in Karachi.147
In addition to criticism of Nestlé’s ambitions to expand and explore new markets in
Pakistan, its leading brand ‘Pure Life’ as such is criticised as not fulfilling the promises it
23
makes. As shown in the Prologue above, the Pakistan Standards & Quality Control
Authority (PSQCA) has served a notice to the management of Nestlé in Pakistan for
selling its brand ‘Pure Life’ without proper authorisation.148 As the national member body
of the ISO, IEC and OIML, the PSQCA is monitoring and implementing the ISO
guidelines and other national quality benchmarks.149 Among other sources of water, the
implementation of the Compulsory Certification Marks Scheme includes bottled drinking
water.150 Nestlé received licenses for their brands ‘Pure Life’, Ava, Fontalia, but these
were not renewed due to certain non-conformances with the set conditions, such as
payment of a prescribed marking fee. After authorities threatened to declare Nestlé’s
business illegal, Nestlé responded by depositing part of its fee with certain conditionality.
These conditions have led to further negotiates between PSQCA and Nestlé, which are
held behind closed doors. One can only assume that in the end a deal will save Nestlé’s
bottled water business and the Government’s interest in taking a share of Nestlé’s
profits.
The work of the PSQCA with regard to bottled water standardisation goes back to the
findings of PCRWR about the bad quality of bottled water in general. In its last findings
about bottled water in January 2004, PCRWR stated that 54.54 percent of Pakistan’s
bottled water is unsafe for consumption because 31.81 percent are contaminated with
arsenic and 27.27 percent is bacteriological tainted. 151 PCRWR therefore recommended
stronger enforcement by PSQCA in order to combat “improper enforcement of quality
standard by the concerned department”.152 Although Nestlé’s brands were not among
the unsafe brands, this was not always so. In 2003, Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’s quality was also
contested. Because Nestlé did not confirm with its own statements on its label, it was
recognized as “one imported brand (claimed) is found unsafe for human
consumption”.153 As shown above, the director of PCRWR additionally claimed in an
interview that Nestlé’s brands ‘Pure Life’ and AVA were devoid of minerals and,
therefore, unfit for human consumption. Finally, the quite populist statement that regular
use of mineral water causes bone deformities led to a legal dispute between Nestlé and
the director of PCRWR.154 One can wonder why Nestlé is in the recent reports not
mentioned. A general statement about quality of bottled water by PCRWR states that
firms in the bottled water business that still “reflect more interest in money making than
quality control measures have labelled chemical composition arbitrarily”. 155
The Ministry of Environment, which acts as Pakistan’s Environmental Protection Agency,
recently stated that “bottled water users are quickly discovering that all bottled water is
not the healthy drinking water they want (…) [and] infrequent testing for contaminants
and sporadic inspection of processing plans must be solved before bottled water can be
assumed to be sanitary as even regular tap water.”156 Cases of contaminated bottled
water causing epidemic illnesses in whole areas are common.157 The problem is two-
fold: On the one hand, refilling of brand-named bottles is an obvious problem. 158 On the
other hand, reckless production often leads to bad quality. Nestlé is not immune to these
allegations. As shown in the Prologue above, Nestlé’s water is considered insufficient for
consumption by the National Health Centre in Islamabad. These findings led to the
Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision to declare Nestlé’s water poisonous and
furthermore to allege that Nestlé was taking advantage of rail passengers as particularly
captive buyers, as no hygienic water was available at platforms and inside trains.159
24
9. Human Rights Concerns about Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’
In Pakistan, groundwater is the main source for drinking water.160 United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), based on research in the
Province of Sindh, suggests that “groundwater extraction at the present rate obviously
exceeds the renewable volume […] in many exploitation areas and is not sustainable
long term”.161 Pakistan does not have an integrated water management policy which
could limit excessive groundwater exploitation. As examples from Sindh are showing,
existing groundwater monitoring systems are insufficient for establishing reliable data.162
Nestlé’s production of ‘Pure Life’ and the related extraction of groundwater are obviously
exceeding the renewable volume and can therefore be considered as not sustainable.
Although this finding is in contradiction with Nestlé’s own Corporate Business Principles,
it only raises certain human rights concerns while not automatically constituting a
violation as such. In order to judge these human rights concerns, one has to identify a
direct impact of Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ production and distribution on peoples’ human rights,
like the right to water, health, food or freedom from discrimination.
Since surface water use is highly regulated, the exploitation of groundwater in Pakistan
– with the exemption of the Province Balochistan – is limited by minimal legislation and
in practice not regulated at all. 164 Even new institutions such as the Pakistan Council of
Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) or the Pakistan Environmental Agency (EPA)
are facing the problem of lacking legal authority. 165 The World Bank Project “Pakistan
Punjab Private Sector Groundwater Development Project” (1996-2002) concluded that
the lack of regulation of the use of groundwater is one of the major obstacles for its
sustainable use. Furthermore, the World Bank stated that uncontrolled groundwater
management creates environmental problems, because the discharge is superseding
the recharge from surface water and results in declining groundwater level. Although the
focus of the World Bank project shared the governmental objective of irrigation for food
production, it concluded that irrigation is drying up wells and hand pumps, and this is a
“system lacking equity in true sense”.166 The World Bank gave approximately USD 2.8
million for a regulatory framework, which was however never enacted.167
What was acknowledged more than ten years ago, with regard to food production, now
has to be stated in reference to drinking water. In Punjab’s non-urban settlements, 6.4
percent of households get their water supplied as piped water, while 8.27 percent get
25
their water from tube-wells and 76.88 percent from hand pumps. In the Lahore district –
the area surrounding Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ production – only 8.49 percent get their water
provided by pipes, while 9.27 percent rely on 24 tube-wells and 78.76 percent on 204
hand pumps.168 Available data, from 2002, shows that the city of Lahore operates more
than 316 tube-wells, in order to provide 90 percent (4.11 million) of its inhabitants with
tap water. A tube-well usually explores the deep ground water at a level of 300–600 ft
(90–180 meter). The deep ground water is safe and sufficient for drinking while the
shallow water, gained at a depth of 50 – 60 ft (15 – 18 meter), is mainly insufficient for
consumption.
Tube-wells excavate 2-3 cubic-feet or 56-85 litres per second. In 10 hours of operation,
a tube-well can provide 2.04-3.05 million litres of water. Taking into consideration water
losses during the purification and production process, Nestlé’s market share in
Pakistan, as well as exports, represents an estimated two or three tube-wells of water. In
comparison, approximately 340 tube-wells are operated for public water services in
Lahore’s urban and rural areas. Although Nestlé’s operations are only a small share of
the overall exploitation of groundwater, there are two differences in regard to the other
tube-wells. First, Nestlé is using the water for industrial purposes and for profit, while the
other tube-wells are extracting groundwater for use as drinking water or for food
production. The latter has priority over corporate interests. Second, while the use of
groundwater in Punjab is not regulated and not sustainable at all, Nestlé should rely on
its own Business Principles and self-commitments with regard to human rights and
sustainable water use instead of taking advantage of the absence of regulation.
Individual use of water has priority over its use for industrial and agricultural purposes
and for profit. Under the circumstances explained above, one is able to conclude that the
production of Nestlé ‘Pure Life’ has a direct impact on people’s access to water.
Excessive groundwater exploitation lowers the groundwater level and jeopardizes the
availability of water. Since water is not only in use for drinking and hygienic purposes but
in rural areas mainly for food production, Nestlé’s business activities also interfere with
people’s right to food. In addition, lack of water causes health issues, such as water-
related diseases due to use of insufficient water. Finally, the excessive extraction of
groundwater also violates the right to property and use of groundwater of land owners in
the neighbourhood of Nestlé’s plant.
Independent studies show that the rapid expansion of the built-up areas in urban
centres, such as Lahore, and the increased and unregulated private exploitation of
groundwater for domestic consumption have led to a decline in the water table of
approximately 1.4 meter annually. 169 The PCRWR estimates a decline of 1–11 ft (30–
3.35 meter). 170 Due to this extensive extraction and the decline of the shallow water and
deep groundwater levels, pumps and wells dry out. The cost for new or deeper wells
jeopardizes peoples existing access to water, and people become dependent on owners
of tube-wells and water sellers. The use and exploitation of groundwater in Punjab is
26
already discriminatory, and the public and industrial exploitation worsens this
situation.171
It is foremost the responsibility of the Government of Pakistan and the Provincial
Authorities of Punjab and Lahore to protect the people affected by Nestlé’s production
methods. But regulation is weak. Recently, the Pakistan Minister of Privatization and
Investment stated: “large companies (…) did not face facilitation problems because of
their access to the top leadership in Pakistan”.172 There should be no doubt about
Nestlé’s access to top leadership. Well-established over decades, it is present in any
board or institution that matters. For example Nestlé Milkpak Ltd. is represented by its
Chairman in the National Academic Council of Pakistan’s Institute for Policy Studies.
This institution is the think-tank for policy oriented-research that assembles the who’s-
who of media, economics, science, politics, administration and armed forces.173 This
access to top leadership ensures transnational corporations that they can act
autonomously as long as they maintain these connections. With these connections,
there is less hope for the poor that their position will be improved and their human rights
will be protected.
Beside the primary, governmental responsibilities for human rights, corporations also
have their own responsibilities. As shown above, where public officials are unwilling or
unable to protect the human rights of their people, corporations have their own specific
responsibilities for the human rights that are affected by their business practices. In this
case, Nestlé would have the obligation to evaluate the impact of its water extraction on
the affected areas and to compensate any disadvantaged parties. Finally, Nestlé itself
incorporated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,174 via its commitments in the
United Nations Global Compact, into its guiding business principles. In addition Nestlé
claims that “As the world’s leading food and beverage company, and the world leader in
bottled waters, Nestlé has a responsibility towards the sustainable use of water
resources”.175 Taking this into consideration, Nestlé has to be held accountable for not
complying with its own commitments. In this regard, Nestlé violates its own business
principles if the unsustainable extraction of groundwater leads to the drying out of
existing systems of water access and food production.
As shown above, insufficient water quality mostly affects the poor, who have little power
to change policies and priorities and who cannot afford alternatives, such as bottled
water, filtering and boiling. The Government of Pakistan officially admitted that “richer
households are substantially more likely to have water piped to a tap in the
household”.176 Furthermore, the Government of Pakistan acknowledged that the
engagement of corporations, which extract groundwater and sell it as bottled water,
might be one of the factors working against water quality improvement because it has
reduced the political pressure for improvement by this part of society whose voices are
valued and heard.177
In these circumstances, bottled water remains the only additional source of safe water.
Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ has developed to meet these new demands. “[It] originated in the
27
global need for a safe family drinking water with a pleasant taste, affordable price and
tailored to local preferences.”178 But again, Nestlé is far from this self-commitment in
Pakistan.
In 2002, the average monthly household income in Pakistan was PKR 7,168 –
consisting of PKR 9,904 in urban and PKR 6,031 in rural areas.179 In 2001, the average
monthly wage was estimated as PKR 3,134. 180 Taking only the lowest 60 percent of
income into consideration, the monthly average household income in urban areas was
PKR 6,127 and in rural areas PKR 4,936. This average of PKR 5,186 monthly income
for one household is not spent for water, especially not for bottled water. Only a small
proportion of households pay for drinking water at all. Among the population as a whole,
only 17 percent of households pay for water and this proportion reaches only 7 per cent
in rural areas.181
The price of a 1.5 litre bottle of Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ (and other brands) costs around PKR
22 (USD 0.38). This same amount of money provides a meal for a family of four. Taking
into consideration that the United Nations estimate a daily need of five litre water per
person,182 the satisfaction of that need with bottled water would cost approximately PKR
2,200 (USD 38.60) per month. Multiplying this for a family of only four people, the
expenses for bottled water would exceed the average monthly income. Bottled water
therefore offers no alternative for insufficient water supply. If families used this as a
substitute, they would indebt their families or sacrifice the satisfaction of other human
rights, such as education, food or shelter. This conclusion is also made by the United
Nations Development Programme in Pakistan, which considers bottled water as an
expensive alternative that is not affordable for the part of the population most affected by
insufficient water supply. 183
Even Nestlé confessed before it started to produce ‘Pure Life’ that "the fact that
everybody can't afford ‘Pure Life’ is unfortunate, but does that mean we shouldn't sell it
at all?”.184 From this perspective, it is reasonable that Nestlé focused its marketing on
urban centres, railway and bus stations and highway stops. To conclude, one has to say
that Nestlé ‘Pure Life’ in Pakistan is not an affordable alternative for the great portion of
the population without access to safe drinking water. Rather the introduction of bottled
water in Pakistan is an attempt to initiate the bottled water culture, where water is a
status symbol and a way of life for the rich.
This hidden business objective is questionable and should be unveiled. It is not
justifiable from a perspective of human rights. Truly, the distribution of public services –
such as water – along the lines of social status would be discrimination and as such a
human rights violation. But a private corporation is still in the position to define its market
objectives independently and to target only certain, potential groups of customers.
Nevertheless, Nestlé’s market strategy is in contradiction with its own commitments to
human rights and sustainable development, which matter from a moral point of view.
As shown previously, Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’ production is extracting groundwater and thus
lowering its level. In cases were this leads to the dry-out of local water supplies, this also
28
can risk people’s human right to health. Insufficient water resources are the main cause
of diseases. If existing water supplies diminish, people have to rely on unsafe water
sources.
In addition to this indirect effect on people’s health, it was explained above that Nestlé is
under ongoing allegations that its bottled water, especially ‘Pure Life’, is not in
compliance with national quality standards. Lack of data and ongoing disputes hinder an
exact judgement of these allegations. Nevertheless, one can conclude that if Nestlé’s
‘Pure Life’ is not safe and sold anyway, then this is a direct violation of people’s right to
water and to health.
29
10. Outlook and Recommendations
To solve the water crisis and lack of drinking water the Government of Pakistan,
international agencies, and NGOs must play an active role.185 First, of all the
Government of Pakistan should acknowledge a water crisis and start to collect sufficient
data.
Second, the focus on agricultural-related water issues has to be shifted to the individual
and the poor as a discriminated majority of Pakistan’s population. The Government of
Pakistan has to acknowledge the right to affordable, safe and sufficient water, as well as
other related human rights, and it has to adopt a national policy that leads to their
fulfilment. Being poor in Pakistan means that “there is nowhere and no one to turn to for
support or justice. They do not live a life – they merely exist, alienated from society at
large.”186 In this regard, access to justice and empowerment of the poor is a main task
for public authorities, international donor and development organizations, and NGOs.
Third, the extraction of groundwater should be regulated and more efficiently monitored.
Lack of regulation is not only an obstacle for development and accountability, but it is
also the violation of the government’s obligation to protect people’s human rights from
corporate interference. Non-sustainable water extraction and industrial use has either be
stopped or compensated by specific projects on water management and environment. In
addition, a long-term financial pool to address the harms of water extraction should be
established, which will provide compensation to local communities. Finally, the
established authorities, such as the Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authority and the
Environmental Protection Authority should ensure that groundwater monitoring is
undertaken and that they have a mandate to initiate policies to address groundwater
management and quality problems.187
Lastly, Nestlé should be held accountable for its commitments with regard to human
rights and sustainability. On the one hand, there should be efficient law enforcement
with regard to quality standards. The lack of funds and the weak regulatory position of
institutions like PCRWR and PSQCA have to be addressed within governmental
authorities, as well as through civil society institutions. The cross-subsidizing of the
quality control programmes, with a rate imposed on each bottle, might be one
opportunity to provide proper funding.188 If Nestlé fails to comply with Pakistan’s law, it
has to bear consequences, instead of using its “access to top leadership”. Any political
deal will create a loophole in the rule of law and lead to a lack of accountability. Nestlé’s
failed compliance with its Corporate Business Principles should also be addressed by its
shareholders and cause a public debate in its host country Switzerland.
Finally, Nestlé’s disobedience with the United Nations Global Compact and its self-
commitment to human rights should lead to a debate within the members of the United
Nations Global Compact, especially its NGO-members. Nestlé’s questionable approach
to the Global Compact as “based on the recognition that development and poverty
reduction depend on prosperity which can only come from efficient and profitable
business”189, has to be debated by other members of the Global Compact.
30
Annex I (Availability and Quality of Drinking Water)
ii
Country-Reports-Org: Pakistan Quick Facts 2005, available at: http://www.countryreports.org
iii
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics / Statistic Division / Population Census Organization, Census 1998, Islamabad 1999
iv
Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics, Statistic Division: Housing Indicators – 1998 Census;
http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/housing_indicators98/housing_indicators98.html
v
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics / Statistic Division / Agricultural Census Organization): Pakistan 2003 Mouza
Statistics (settled Areas), Lahore 2005, page 47
vi
van Steenbergen, Frank: Policies in Groundwater Management in Pakistan, 1950-2000, Arcadis Euroconsult (Land & Water Product Management
Group), Water Praxis Document Nr. 3, Arnhem 2001, page 16
vii
Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources (PCRWR):National Water Quality Monitoring Programme, Report 2004, Islamabad 2005
viii
UNDP: Human Development Report 2004 “Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world”, New York 2004, Gender-related Development Index at page 162
ix
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Water and Power / Office of the Chief Engineering Advisor/ Chairman Federal Flood Commission): Pakistan Water
Sector Strategy – Detailed Strategy Formulation, Islamabad 2002, Volume 4, page 111f, 135
x
UNDP: Pakistan National Human Development Report 2003 “Poverty, Growth and Governance, Karachi 2003, page 23
xi
Khan, Mushtaq A.: Nutrition: A Factor for Poverty Eradication and Development, in: UNDP-Pakistan / UNOPS / Centre for Research on Poverty
Reduction and Income Distribution (CRPRID): Pakistan Human Condition Report 2003), Islamabad 2003, page 117f. (154, 155)
xii
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics / Statistic Division / Agricultural Census Organization): Pakistan 2003 Mouza
Statistics (settled Areas), Lahore 2005, page 47
xiii
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO): Drinking Water Quality in Pakistan, in: The United Nations System in Pakistan: Water –
A Vital Source of Life, Islamabad 2003, page 63
31
Annex II (Endnotes & References)
1
Nestle: Nestlé and Water – Sustainability, Protection, Stewardship, Nestlé 2003, page 10; available at
www.nestle.com
2
Hoti, Ikram: Nestle faces legal action, in: The News (Karachi) of February 5, 2005
3
Nestle claims Rs 20 million damages from PCRWR, APP, in: Daily Times (Lahore) of June 3, 2003
4
SC releases research reports on mineral water, in: Daily Times (Lahore) of January 1, 2005
5
Pakistan Railway ignores Supreme Court directive on bottled water, in: Dawn (Islamabad) of February 1,
2005
6
Kahn, Shujaat Ali: KARACHI: SHC stays water plant in education city, in: Dawn (Islamabad) of December
1, 2004
7
See for this Name: Nestlé: Nestlé Corporate Business Principles, 3rd Edition, September 2003; available at
www.nestle.com
8
Beck, Ernest: Popular Perrier – Nestlé pitches bottled water to world’s poor, in: Asian Wall Street Journal,
June 23, 1999
9
For definition see: World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund: Water Supply and
Sanitation Collaborative Council, in: Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment (Report), New York /
Geneva 2000, page 77f.
10
The United Nations System in Pakistan: Water – A Vital Source of Life, Islamabad 2003, page 63
11
ibid., page 60
12
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Environment / Pakistan Environment Protection Agency): Clean
Drinking Water Initiative Project, Revised PC-I, Islamabad 2003 (on file with author)
13
World Health Organization (WHO): Bottled Drinking Water (Fact Sheet No. 256), Geneva 2000, available
at: http://www.who.int/
14
UNESCO: Facts and Figures: Bottled Water, Paris 2003, available at: http://www.wateryear2003.org
15
Nestlé: Nestlé and Water - Sustainability, Protection, Stewardship, see endnote 1, page 50
16
Nestlé: Nestlé Corporate Business Principles, see endnote 7, Principle 6, page 18
17
Nestlé: Corporate Governance Principles, in: Nestlé Corporate Business Principles, see endnote 7, Principle
IV, page 27
18
Guissé, El Hadji Relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the
promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, Final report of the Special
Rapporteur, Geneva 2004; U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/20, Article 4, 5 and 8
19
Article 5, 10 of Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses,
adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 51/229 of May 21, 1997, U.N. Doc. A/RES/51/869
20
UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of
the World, Report of the Secretary General, New York 1997, page 39
21
Global Water Supply and Sanitation 2000 Assessment, WHO / UNICEF 2000 actualised in: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) / United Nations World Water Programme
(WWAP): Water for People – Water for Life (The United Nations World Water Report), UNESCO 2003,
page 102f. (105)
22
UNDP: Human Development Report 2004 “Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world”, New York 2004,
Technical Note 1 with regard to the definition and elaboration of the Human Development Index at page
259f.
23
ibid., page 132, 141
24
ibid. page 128, 220
25
Preamble, Article 1 and 2 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973)
26
Abu-Dawood 3470
27
Faruqui, Naser I.: Islam and water management: Overview and principles, in: in: Faruqui, Naser I, Biswas,
Asit K., Bino, Murad J.: Water Management in Islam; Tokyo, New York, Paris 2001, page 1 (2); and:
Kadouri, M.T; Djebbar, Y., Nehdi, M.: Water rights and water trade: An Islamic perspective; in: Faruqui,
Naser I, Biswas, Asit K., Bino, Murad J.: Water Management in Islam; Tokyo, New York, Paris 2001, page
85 (90);
28
See among others: IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks as part of the UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)): Special Report on the water crisis,
http://www.irinnews.org, 2001
29
United Nations, see endnote 21, page 71
32
30
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Water and Power / Office of the Chief Engineering Advisor/
Chairman Federal Flood Commission): Pakistan Water Sector Strategy – Detailed Strategy Formulation,
Islamabad 2002, Volume 4, page 111
31
See among others: IRIN, see endnote 28,; ActionAid Pakistan: Degrading of Indus Delta & Its Impact on
Local Communities, Islamabad 2004
32
See description of “Water Crisis” in: UNDP: Pakistan National Human Development Report 2003
“Poverty, Growth and Governance, Karachi 2003, page 7f.
33
World Bank: Punjab Private Sector Groundwater Development Project, Staff Appraisal Report of June 13,
1996, Report No. 15207-Pak, page 1
34
The Pakistan Government admitted also in its Mouza Report 1998 about social and living standards in rural
villages and settlements that the availability of drinking water declined from 32’232 settlements in 1993 to
29’884 in 1998. Again, in its Mouza Report 2003 29’254 out of 37’280 (78.47 percent) villages or
settlements report their drinking water as sweet water, while 6’753 (18.11 percent) report it as brackish and
1’273 (3.41 percent) as not available. See: Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Statistics / Statistic Division / Agricultural Census Organization): Pakistan 1998 – Mouza Statistics (settled
areas), available at
http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/housing_indicators98/housing_indicators98.html; and
Pakistan 2003 Mouza Statistics (settled Areas), Lahore 2005, page 47
35
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 30, page 112
36
UNESCO: Water quality indicator values in selected countries, at:
http://www.unesco.org/bpi/wwdr/WWDR_chart2_eng.pdf
37
IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks as part of the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)):PAKISTAN: Focus on poisoned water and disabilities,
http://www.irinnews.org, 2004
38
Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources (PCRWR):National Water Quality Monitoring
Programme, Report 2004, Islamabad 2005
39
IRIN, see endnote 28
40
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics / Statistics Division / Federal Bureau
of Statistics): Priority Diseases Report (FG 3) Period July- September, 2004, available at:
http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/social_statistics/social_statistics.html
41
Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources, see endnote 38
42
The United Nations System in Pakistan: Water – A Vital Source of Life, see endnote 10, page 60
43
Pakistan National Human Development Report 2003, see endnote 32, page 73
44
Mar del Plata (March 14.-25, 1977) Programme of Action, U.C. Doc. E/CONF.70/29
45
General Assembly Resolution 35/18 „Proclamation of the International Drinking Water Supply and
Sanitation Decade“ of November 10, 1980, U.N. Doc. A/RES/35/18
46
General Assembly Resolution 47/193 „Observance of World Day for Water” of December 22, 1992, U.N.
Doc. A/RES/47/193
47
New Delhi Statement, Global Consultation on Safe Water and Sanitation fort he 1990ies
48
United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 of September 8, 2000,
U.N.Doc. A/RES/55/2
49
The United Nations System in Pakistan: Water – A Vital Source of Life, see endnote 10, page ix
50
UNDP 2003: United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report 2003 “Millennium
Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty”, Oxford University Press, Oxford /
New York 2003, page 15f.
51
Human Development Report 2004, see endnote 22
52
Pakistan National Human Development Report 2003, see endnote 32, page 103
53
Hussain, Akmal: Poverty in Pakistan – A new paradigm for overcoming poverty, at:
http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/underserved/poverty_in-pakistan.htm
54
UNDP / World Bank: Joint Letter signed by Zhang, Shegman (Managing Director of the World Bank) and
Malloch Brown, Mark (Chair of the United Nations Development Group, Washington / New York May 5,
2003 (on file with author)
55
Social Policy and Development Centre: Social Development in Pakistan Annual Review 2004 Combating
Poverty: Is Growth Sufficient?, Karachi 2004, page 37f. (40)
56
Subohi, Afshan: Flawed outlook on poverty reduction, in: Dawn Business Review February 22, 2005
33
57
The International Development Association / International Monetary Fund: Pakistan - Joint Staff
Assessment of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, February 12, 2004 (on file with author), page 5, 11
58
Government of Pakistan: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper “Accelerating Economic Growth and Reducing
Poverty: The Road Ahead”, Islamabad 2003, page 80
59
ibid., page 73
60
United Nations Development Project: Investing in Development – A Practical Plan to Achieve the
Millennium Development Goals, London / Sterling 2005, page 239, 245
61
Human Development Report 2003, see endnote 50, page 105f.
62
World Penal on Financing Water Infrastructure, 2003: World Penal on Financing Water Infrastructure:
Financing Water for All (Camdessus-Report), Kyoto 2003
63
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 30, page 133, 151
64
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 12
65
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Finance / PRSP Secretariat): Draft PRSP (Summarized Version),
Islamabad 2003, page 41, 47
66
For the budget see: Government of Pakistan: Budget at a Glance, Islamabad 2004, at:
http://www.finance.org.pk/budget/glance.htm
67
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Finance / PRSP Secretariat): Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
Progress Report for the Year 2003-04, Islamabad 2004, page 7, 25; Government of Pakistan (Ministry of
Finance / PRSP Secretariat): Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report for the First Quarter of
2004-05, Islamabad 2004, page 5, 21
68
ul Haque, Ihtasham: 40pc uplift funds lying unused, in: Dawn (Islamabad) of February 17, 2005
69
UNDP: Human Development Report 1995, New York / Oxford 1995, page 123f.
70
Article 10 (Part I) of Programme of Action, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World
Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14-25 June 1993, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/24 (Part I) at 20 (1993)
71
UNDP: Poverty Reduction and Human Rights – A Practical Note, New York 2003, page 5
72
Set up by Economic and Social Council Resolution 1985/17 of May 28, 1985, U.N. Doc. E/RES/1985/17;
approved by General Assembly Resolution 40/114 of December 13, 1985, U.N. Doc. A/RES/40/144
73
Charter of the United Nations (adopted on June 26, 1945 and entered into force on October 24, 1945) 557
U.N.T.S 143, Article 62, Para. 2
74
ibid., Article 13 lit. (a)
75
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of December
10, 1948; U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948)
76
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of December 16, 1966; ICescR entered into force
on January 03, 1976 U.N. Doc. A/RES/2200 A (XXI)
77
See among other the General Comment No. 12 (1999) with regard to the right to food and No. 15 (2000)
with regard to the right to health; U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.5
78
Adopted on November 26, 2002, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11
79
Article 9 and 38 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973)
80
Shala Zia v. WAPDA, ODL (1994) SC 693. this case also lead to many similar decisions. For an extensive
analysis see; Parvez, Hassan: Environmental Rights as Part of Fundamental Rights; the Leadership of
Judiciary in Pakistan, IUCN/Ecopravo-Livi/UNEP ‘EECCA Region Judges Symposium, May 2003
81
Article 37 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973)
82
Article 155 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973)
83
General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union Khwar, Khelum v. The Director, Industries
and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore, Human Rights Case No. 120 of 1993, (1994) S.C.M.R at 2070
84
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment Number 15 (2002)
– The Right to Water (Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights), U.N. Doc. E/CN.12/2002/11, Paragraph 23
85
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment Number 15 (2002)
– The Right to Water (Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights), U.N. Doc. E/CN.12/2002/11, Paragraph 49
86
United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Norms of the
responsibility of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, U.N.
Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2, Article 1; adopted with Commentary, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2, by Resolution 2003/16 on August 13, 2003, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2003/16
34
87
ibid., Article 12
88
ibid., Article 2
89
ibid., Article 13
90
ibid., Article 14
91
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,
adopted June 21, 1976, 15 ILM 967 (1976), and revised on June 27, 2000, 40 ILM 237 (2001), available at
www.oecd.org; See for voluntary nature: Article 1 (Preface) of The OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises, in: OECD: OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Global Instruments for Corporate
Responsibility, Annual Report 2001, Paris 2001, page 127f. (127). Member countries of the OECD are
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, and the USA.
Seven non-member countries - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Estonia, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia -
have also declared their adherence to the Guidelines.
92
Ibid., General Policies, 2
93
Ibid., Article 1 (Preface)
94
Ibid., Concepts and Principles, 1 & 2
95
Issued by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his address at the World Economic Forum in Davos
(Switzerland) on January 31, 1999, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/6448 (1999); As for Global Compact see:
www.globalcompact.org
96
Developed in lean on Swift & Zadek: “Corporate Responsibility and the Competitive Advantage of
Nations” The Copenhagen Centre & AccountAbility, 2002, p. 14 who speak of ‘generations’.
97
Dawn: Investment proposals discussed with PM, in: Dawn of January 19, 2005
98
For Definition see: Norms of the responsibility of transnational corporations and other business enterprises
with regard to human rights, see endnote 86, Article 20; For the Discussion about different definitions see:
Muchlinski Peter T.: Multinational Enterprises and the Law, Blackwell, Oxford 1999, page 12f.
99
Nestlé: At a Glance, available at:
http://www.nestle.com/All_About/Glance/Introduction/Glance+Introduction.htm; Nestlé: Overview 2004 –
Outlook 2005, Press Release of March 8, 2005
100
UNCTAD: World Investment Report 2004 “The Shift Towards Services”, New York / Geneva 2004, page
276, 279
101
Nestlé: At a Glance, see endnote 99
102
One has to take into consideration that sales are not completely comparable to GDP. See explanation note
of UNCTAD: Are Transnationals Bigger Than Countries?, Geneva 2002, Doc. TAD/INF/PR47
103
Government of Pakistan (Board of Investment): NESTLE: MILKPAK, Sales: 9.222bn. PKR / Operating
Profit: 1.149bn. PKR / Net-Profit: 651 million PKR, available at:
http://www.pakboi.gov.pk/Success_Stories/nestle__milkpak.html
104
For Critique on Nestle Milkpak Ltd. policy on milk and diary products see: The milk of human kindness,
in: Mathew’s Journal, story of April 15, 2002, available at: http://www.xciv.org/~meta/Politics/UK/;
ActionAid Pakistan: Milking Poor, Islamabad 2005 (on file of author)
105
Government of Pakistan (Board of Investment): Business Success Stories in Pakistan, available at:
http://www.pakboi.gov.pk/Success_Stories/business_success_stories_in_pa.html
106
Nestlé: Nestlé Corporate Business Principles, see endnote 7, page 6
107
Nestlé: Our Responsibility / UN Global Compact – Nestlé’s Position, available at: http://www.nestle.com
108
Nestlé: Management Report 2003, Vevey 2003, page 26
109
United Nations Global Compact: Communication on Progress, available at: http://www.unglobalcompact.org
(last visit on February 9, 2005)
110
See for an overall critique: Richter, Judith: Building on Quicksand The Global Compact, democratic
governance and Nestlé, CETIM, IBFAN/GIFA and Berne Declaration (Eds.), Geneva / Zürich 2004
111
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, see endnote 75
112
Nestlé, see endnote 108, page 27
113
Nestlé: Nestlé Corporate Business Principles, see endnote 7, page 6
114
Nestlé: Our Responsibility / Water, available at: http://www.nestle.com
115
Nestlé: Nestlé and Water - Sustainability, Protection, Stewardship, see endnote 1, page 63
116
Ibid., page 63
117
Nestlé, see endnote 108, page 49
35
118
Nestle Waters: The World Market, available at http://www.nestle-waters.com
119
International Council of Bottled Water Associations: Global Bottled Water Statistics, with reference to
Zenith International and Beverage Marketing Corporation, available at http://www.icbwa.org/
120
Klessig, Lance: Bottled Water Industry, in: University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire: Water is Life, Wisconsin-
Eau Claire, 2004, available at: http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/KLESSILL/
121
Nestle Waters, see endnote 118
122
Zenith International: ABWA Asia/Middle East Bottled Water Market Report, partly available at:
http://www.bottledwaterweb.com/
123
Nestle Waters, see endnote 118
124
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Industries, Production and Special Initiatives / Experts Advisory
Cell): Pakistan Investors Guide 2004, page 117
125
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics / Statistics Division / Federal Bureau
of Statistics): Monthly Price Indices; available at:
http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/statistics/price_statistics/monthly_price_indices/
126
Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Industries, Production and Special Initiatives / Experts Advisory Cell):
Industrial Digest - The Bottled Water Industry of Pakistan, Islamabad 2004, page 62
127
Ibid., page 62
128
Nestle Waters: Asia: A dynamic market, available at http://www.nestle-waters.com
129
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 126, page 68
130
Ibid., page 62, 65
131
Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources (PCRWR): Quality Analysis of Bottled / Mineral Waters
Report 2003-04, Islamabad 2004
132
Hoti, Ikram, see endnote 2
133
Hoti, Ikram: Water and beverage brands go untested in market, in: The News (Lahore) of February 14,
2005
134
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 126, page 65
135
Nestle Waters, see endnote 128
136
Nestlé, see endnote 108, page 49
137
Nestlé’s second international brand ‘Nestlé Aquarel’ was launched in 2000 and is a natural spring water
currently from nine different springs in France, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Italy and Spain.
138
Nestle Waters: Key Figures: 77 brands of bottled water sold worldwide, available at http://www.nestle-
waters.com
139
Nestlé: Forschung und Entwicklung an der Schwelle des 21. Jahrhunderts
140
Beck, Ernest, see endnote 8
141
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 126, page 66
142
For disputes in U.S.A. see: Schneider, Keith: Nestle Decision a Bipartisan Challenge – Court’s ruling
invites collaboration to secure fresh water, in: Great Lakes Bulletin News Service of December 12, 2003;
for disputes in Argentina see: Schwarz, Mike: Bottled Water Conflicts in: University of Wisconsin-Eau
Claire: Water is Life, Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 2004, available at: http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/
143
For instance: Stern, Daniel: Die Quellenschlucker vom Genfersee - Nestlés Wassergeschäft: Proteste und
Prozesse, in: Wochenzeitung of July 10, 2003; attac Bern: Nestlé und das Geschäft mit dem Wasser,
available at: http://www.local.attac.org/berne/aktionen/aktionen2003-06.htm
144
Awan, Akhgar Anwar: Allotment of land in Education City for industrial purposes - SHC told project still
not notified, in: Karachi News of August 27, 2004
145
Siddiqui, Shahid (Head of Corporate & Legal Affairs, Nestle Milkpak Ltd.): Clarification, in: The News
(Lahore) of August 25, 2004
146
Khan, Shujaat Ali: KARACHI: SHC stays water plant in education city, in: Dawn (Karachi) of December
1, 2004
147
Nestlé, see endnote 114
148
Hoti, Ikram see endnote 2
149
Pakistan Standards & Quality Control Authority Act, 1996 (Act VI of 96)
150
Compulsory Certification Marks Scheme under SRO.No.638(I)/2001 of September 12, 2001
151
Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, see endnote 131
152
Ibid., Recommendation 1 & 4
153
Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Quality Analysis of Bottled / Mineral Waters Results
2001, Islamabad 2003
36
154
Nestle claims Rs 20 million damages from PCRWR, APP, in: Daily Times (Lahore) of June 3, 2003
155
Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, see endnote 131
156
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 12
157
See for instance: VEHARI: Spurious mineral water being sold in Vehari, in: Dawn (Islamabad) of February
9, 2005
158
See for instance: Absence of consumer protection law a big problem for people, in Khaleej Times (Karachi)
of July 23, 2002
159
Pakistan Railway ignores Supreme Court directive on bottled water, in: Dawn (Islamabad) of February 1,
2005
160
ActionAid Pakistan: Experimenting with Lives of Poor, Islamabad 2004, page 17
161
The United Nations System in Pakistan: Water – A Vital Source of Life, see endnote 10, page 58
162
Ibid., page 58
163
ActionAid Pakistan, see endnote 160, page 17
164
For regulation of surface water in the Province of Punjab see: Amended by Punjab Amendment Act 1952,
Extension Act 1964. West Pakistan Amendment 1965, 1968. Ordinance 1970, and Punjab Amendment
Ordinance 1970, 1971 and 1975; The Punjab Soil Reclamation Act, 1952 was Amended by West Pakistan
Amendment Ordinance 1964, by which the Soil Reclamation Board was substituted by Land and Water
Development Board; For regulation of groundwater in Province of Punjab see: Water and Power
Development Authority, Act 1958, Punjab Soil Reclamation Act. 1952 and Rules issued in 1965,
165
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 30, page 52
166
World Bank: Pakistan - Privatization of Groundwater Development in SCARP Areas Project,
Environmental Assessment of August 11, 1994, Report No. E200, page 10, 11
167
World Bank, see endnote 32, page 20
168
Government of Pakistan, Mouza 2003, see endnote 34, page 39 (49)
169
van Steenbergen, Frank: Policies in Groundwater Management in Pakistan, 1950-2000, Arcadis
Euroconsult (Land & Water Product Management Group), Water Praxis Document Nr. 3, Arnhem 2001,
page 16
170
Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources, see endnote 38
171
World Bank: World Bank Project “Pakistan Punjab Private Sector Groundwater Development Project”
(1996-2002), Paper “Monopoly Power and Distribution in Fragmented Markets: The Case of Groundwater”
172
See: Improved facilitation to attract more FDI, in: Dawn (Islamabad) of February 27, 2005
173
See Members of National Academic Council, available at: http://www.ips.org.pk
174
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, see endnote 75
175
Nestlé, see endnote 114
176
Government of Pakistan (Federal Bureau of Statistics / Statistics Division) Pakistan Integrated Household
Survey / Round 4: 2001-02, Islamabad 2003, page 130
177
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 30, page 213
178
Nestlé: What’s in the Nestlé name, available at http://www.nestle-waters.com
179
Government of Pakistan Islamabad (Federal Bureau of Statistics / Statistics Division) Household Integrated
Economic Survey / Round 4: 2001-02 (Executive Summary), Islamabad 2003, page 11
180
Arif, G.M.: Poverty Dynamics in Pakistan: Evidence From the Two Panels Household Surveys, in: UNDP-
Pakistan / UNOPS / Centre for Research on Poverty Reduction and Income Distribution (CRPRID):
Pakistan Human Condition Report 2003), Islamabad 2003, page 69f. (72)
181
Government of Pakistan, see endnote 176, page 130
182
United Nations World Water Report, see endnote 21, page 121
183
Pakistan National Human Development Report 2003, see endnote 32, page 24
184
Beck, Ernest, see endnote 8
185
ActionAid Pakistan, see endnote 31, page 53
186
Social Policy and Development Centre, see endnote 55, page 47
187
van Steenbergen, Frank, see endnote 169, page 18f.
188
This proposal was made already by Government of Pakistan, see endnote 126, page 74
189
Nestlé, see endnote 107
37