I just got back from attending the PepsiCo Annual Shareholder’s Meeting in Plano, Texas, where the UUSC-NorthStar Human Right to Water Resolution got a fantastic vote – 7 percent! I know that might not sound like much, but in the shareholder advocacy world, it’s a big victory. For a shareholder resolution to appear on the agenda next year, it needs 4 percent support. Most first-time resolutions, such as this one, don’t reach that threshold.

At the meeting, which was highly choreographed, Claire DeWitte, of NorthStar Asset Management, and I were led to our reserved seats, not too close, but not too far away from where PepsiCo President Indra Nooyi would give her annual report. After a feel-good review of “great Pepsi commercials of the past,” Nooyi gave a glowing report of the company’s performance. She also predicted that the economic slow-down would be good for a company like PepsiCo, owner of Frito-Lay, because in hard times, people can still afford its "comfort foods.”

After her presentation, the shareholder resolutions were presented. Claire and I did a joint presentation of our resolution. PepsiCo was actually very generous with time, and we spoke for about seven minutes. We explained that by adopting a human-right-to-water policy, PepsiCo could take a step forward in showing that they respect their customers and the communities in which they operate. We also argued that the company could prevent massive depletion of water resources before it happens and that adopting our policy could reduce PepsiCo’s liability as it operates in many countries around the world that either have or are integrating a human-right-to-water policy into their national legal framework.

Nooyi responded to our presentation, that “as an Indian woman, the issue of water was very close to her heart.” She then went on to tout PepsiCo as a leader in the industry, while avoiding the issue of why Pepsi would not adopt our proposed human-right-to-water policy. She also failed to address the fact that bottling companies have created water-scarcity problems in the areas in which they operate. In India, it is has been documented that water tables dropped 26 feet in the last seven years in some areas due to beverage-company operations.

PepsiCo states it is investing in water-scarce regions of India by digging public wells and boreholes. But in many cases, it was their operations that exacerbated the water-scarcity problem in the first place.

Because Pepsi is such a huge water consumer – around 90 billion liters of water per year internationally – they have a legal and moral responsibility to monitor and correct the negative impacts they have on the availability and safety of water resources.

I pushed Nooyi with follow-up questions, but she didn’t get to be the president of PepsiCo without being able to deflect hard questions. I did have a chance to speak with her afterward, where I let her know that if the company is interested, UUSC and NorthStar are willing to work with them on developing a human-right-to-water policy, but that if not, we will be seeing them at the next annual meeting!

You can hear the complete PepsiCo Annual Meeting via webcast. Our presentation can be heard at the 43:00 minute mark.

You can also read UUSC's statement by clicking here.

I was up until midnight last night reading a landmark decision from the High Court of South Africa. The case, which our partner the Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP) helped local residents bring to court, affirms water as a fundamental human rights that the South African government must respect, protect, and fulfill. I found the decision inspiring and hopeful at a time when human rights around the world are under threat.

In his decision, Judge Tsoka declared South Africa's prepaid-water-meter system to be unconstitutional because it denies residents access to water by physically shutting off supplies each month when a household’s free basic allotment runs out. He required Johannesburg Water, the municipal water utility, to increase the amount of free basic water per month to 50 liters per person per day, the amount set by the World Health Organization to be the minimum to live a life of dignity.

What I found amazing was that the judge took a further step than most other progressive South African judgments by saying that the human right to water does, indeed, include a “minimum core” responsibility to be met by the state. This idea of a “minimum core,” established in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has been debated in South African courts. Previous opinions showed discomfort at setting a minimum standard that the state must meet because of a potential-lack-of-resources argument. But Judge Tsoka took a brave step forward by declaring that 25 liters per person per day was a national minimum, but 50 liters per person per day was required for a dignified life, another right in the South African constitution.

Law, and especially international human rights law, is built like a house. Each case is a brick that supports the overall structure and defines the various aspects of the legal framework. The South Africa water case will be a cornerstone in the development of the human right to water. It affirms that international human rights law can, indeed, have teeth. So far, as demonstrated in the South African High Court, it seems that human rights law is most effective when its principles are enshrined in national constitutions.

UUSC has partnered with CAWP for two years. We will continue to support their struggle to advance the rights of all South Africans to safe, sufficient, affordable, and accessible water. We are hopeful that this will be one of many more important victories won by our partners to promote and defend the human right to water.

More great news for the human rights to water! For the past few months, UUSC's Environmental Justice Program has been working with NorthStar Asset Management, a socially responsible wealth-management firm here in Boston, on a shareholder resolution that requires PepsiCo to adopt a human-right-to-water policy for all of their domestic and international operations.

 

To give some indication of the company’s overuse and abuse of water resources, PepsiCo uses 2.5 liters of water for every liter of soda that it produces. Given that PepsiCo sells around 36 billion liters of soda in an average year, this means the beverage giant consumes over 63 million gallons of water every day.

 

In 2003, PepsiCo’s license to operate in Puthussery, in Kerala State, India, was revoked after the local community charged that PepsiCo’s bottling operations were committing “water piracy” by depleting groundwater sources in the area. In 2004, the Supreme Court of India ruled that both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola must label all cans and bottles with a consumer warning after tests showed their products contained unacceptable levels of residual pesticides.

UUSC and NorthStar Asset Management have begun a dialogue with PepsiCo about adopting a human-right-to-water policy. We believe this is an important way for the company to show its commitment to respecting the human rights of people in the communities in which they operate and create a mechanism for monitoring the impact of its operations on access to water.

 

After PepsiCo refused to adopt such a policy, we decided to submit a resolution to PepsiCo shareholders so they could decide what good business practice is when it comes to water use. PepsiCo challenged this resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but UUSC and Northstar prevailed. We will soon be presenting and speaking in support of this resolution at the PepsiCo annual shareholders meeting in Texas. (If you own stock in PepsiCo, you can vote your proxy in favor of our shareholder resolution.)

 

This does not mean the resolution will be passed, but it does mean that thousands of PepsiCo shareholders will read about the human right to water when the resolution is proposed. They will begin to understand that investing in companies like PepsiCo that threaten people's access to safe, sufficient, and affordable water for daily needs will become increasingly contentious.

On Wednesday in Texas, we hope to show that respecting human rights is the right thing to do, and that good business practice can improve a company’s bottom line. There are strong arguments for a triple bottom line: profits, people, and the environment. If people feel good about your practices, they will feel good about consuming your products. For a beverage company like PepsiCo that relies on the same water resources as the communities around them, it would behoove them to ensure that they protect their most vital ingredient: water.

After six years without water, the people of Kwamasiza Hostel, a huge low-income housing block in the Vaal region of South Africa, finally got their water back. The news came from our partner the Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP), after their year-long campaign for water rights finally led the municipality to take action.

CAWP had written a letter in January 2008 to the municipality's water provider, Metsi a Lekoa, concerning water and sanitation problems at Kwamasiza Hostel. Instead of sending a customary written response, as so often happens, the municipality actually went ahead and reopened the local water valve, which was closed in September 2001 during an attempted forced eviction of local residents.

Patricia Jones and I traveled to South Africa in November 2007 to visit the community. There, a community organizer, Elliott Nsundu, told us about the day that police, military, and private security were called in and used tear gas and rubber bullets against local residents to clear them out. Refusing to leave, community members fought back. They had no where else to go.

Eventually, the police and military attack was repelled, and the community stayed in Kwamasiza. But as the police left, they cut off all basic services to the community, including water, sanitation, and electricity. Thousands of people living in the 10-story building block were forced to use the surrounding fields for their sanitation needs and buy water from a water-supply truck that came through once a week.

In this case, it's important to remember that restricted access to water and housing evictions have a different tone in South Africa, with its recent history of apartheid and the new national constitution that protects the right to water and the right to housing. This progressive legal framework has enabled South African citizens not only to fight for what is morally right, but to fight for what is legally entitled to them.

In Phiri (pronounced "piree), Soweto, the community is waging a battle against prepaid water meters in the High Court of South Africa.

Now, with their water services reinstated, the Kwamasiza community can begin to live their lives again with the dignity, health, and safety all people deserve.

Ecuador has taken the first steps towards defining the scope of its constitutional provisions to protect the human right to water. Ecuadorians are currently engaged in a National Constituent Assembly process by which the nation's constitution will be revised. One expected outcome of this effort is the constitutional definition of the human right to water for all Ecuadorians, with special attention to the rights of the poor.

Under the Constituent Assembly process, any citizen can attend the on-going forums taking place in various cities around the country and make her voice heard. Each forum centers on a particular constitutional provision under revision.

I attended one of the numerous forums addressing water. The discussion focused on how to characterize the right to water (as a human right, a communal right, or an economic right), how to protect the environment while doing so, and a plan for development. I was struck by the power of this democratic process and the stamp of legitimacy it placed on the outcome. In the discussion group I observed, indigenous farmers, women, and youth were all vocal participants. The facilitator was even elected to her post. No one can question that the results of these meetings represent the will of the people.

The process works in this sequence: after the discussion group comes to a general consensus on the proposals they would like to present, the facilitator summarizes the group’s comments and presents them to the Assembly at large. After all the forums are completed, the elected facilitators will compile all of the proposals and these will be used to hammer out the final wording of the constitution.

The forum was in Portoviejo and the offices of UUSC partner Mi Cometa are in Guayaquil. On the drive back, we passed miles and miles of flooded land. Many people have been displaced or are simply living in a swamp. Ironically, one consequence of the flood damage is the lack of clean water to drink. It has to be brought in on trucks. The gap between policy and reality opened before me.

Ecuadorians hope that the legitimacy of this comprehensive and democratic process will compel Interagua, a subsidiary of the American corporation Bechtel, either to leave the country or improve its services. They also hope that the government will be invested with sufficient leverage to require these improvements. I too am hopeful.

The Guardian reported last week that Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, won a case against Biwater, a multinational water supplier, in a London tribunal. In 2003, under pressure from the World Bank, Tanzania privatized the water system in Dar Es Salaam, the capital city, in exchange for much needed debt relief. The contract was awarded to a U.K. water company named Biwater.

Within two years, the World Bank’s own findings showed that under City Water Services, the Biwater subsidiary, the city’s water and sewage services had worsened greatly. In 2005, Tanzania took back control of water services in the city. Biwater then sued for breach of contract under the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) within the World Bank and within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Forced or coerced privatizations by the World Bank have had negative impacts on public utilities across Africa. UUSC partner the Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP), which works on water and gender issues in Tanzania, has relayed to us their frustration and disappointment in the continuing trend of foreign aid and loans having strings attached, primarily in the form of privatizing public services.

In 2006, TGNP launched a water campaign with the goal of “returning resources to the people.” TGNP’s research exposed that lack of safe, sufficient, and affordable water had created gender-based violence around water accessibility and increased the rate of girls dropping out of school. This was because women and girls are largely deemed responsible for the provision of water in the home.

Seeing that water was such an integral issue in the lives of women in Tanzania, TGNP became involved in analyzing the national budget and funds for the water sector. They successfully campaigned to have a woman appointed as assistant water minister and an increase in the overall allocation for the water sector. Although access to water for all remains a pressing issue in Tanzania, the women of TGNP are satisfied that the power to decide how much water is provided no longer rests with the World Bank or private corporations.

Last week, a London tribunal threw out a case brought by Biwater against Tanzania under the rules of UNCITRAL and awarded Tanzania $7 million in damages and costs. This was a huge victory for Tanzania. It was an initial acknowledgment that water is an essential human need.

When a contract impedes a government in meeting their human-rights requirements to their people, it is essential that international bodies such as the United Nations and other intergovernmental bodies support human rights over corporate profit.

Tanzania still awaits the decision of ICSID, a World Bank body, which is expected in the next few months. Our partners at TGNP, skeptical about the impartiality and fairness of this embedded judicial body, have called for the courtrooms to be “open to the watchful eyes and cameras of the world so that the mayhem of plunder by profit hungry companies of the ‘global village’ can partly be revealed for all.”

 

We were excited this morning because our partner, the Coalition Against Water Privatisation (CAWP), informed us that they were to get international news coverage of the water problem in Phiri (pronounced "pirri"), Soweto from Al-Jazeera. CAWP had been so successful in their awareness-raising campaigns and demonstrations that many people around South Africa now have their eyes on what will take place next week. Next week, a member of CAWP, Jennifer Makoatsane, and four other plaintiffs will take Johannesburg Water to the High Court to contest the installation of pre-paid water meters on their property.

This case against pre-paid meters and challenging the minimum monthly allowance of free water per household to poor families are possible because the South African constitution, ratified in 1996, is the most progressive constitution in the world. For example, it fully recognizes social, economic, and environmental rights. The human right to water is recognized in section 27 and is being used by the residents of Phiri to fight for enough water to meet their daily needs.

I had been to South Africa before, working for the South African Human Rights Commission in Cape Town, but I had not made it over to Joburg or Soweto and was eager to see the area. CAWP representatives picked us up from the guesthouse around 10 a.m. and drove us to Phiri, a Sotho (pronounced "sutu") area of Soweto. Under apartheid, people were not only separated into neighborhoods by "race" (chosen by the apartheid government) but also ethnicity within that given race. So "Blacks" were further divided into Sotho, Tswana, Zulu, Xhosa, etc. "Blood-mixing" of any sort was considered dangerous as it might undermine "White" purity, power, and dominance.

When we arrived in Phiri, we were welcomed by Jennifer and other members of the community. She took us into her home and showed us the difficulty of daily tasks without sufficient water, such as doing laundry or bathing. For even the poorest households, Johannesburg Water only provides 6 kl of water per household per month. For a large family like Jennifer's, this only allows the toilet to be flushed once every few days, and a bath for each member of a the household twice a month, and it leaves virtually nothing for laundry or food preparation.

She also sat down with us and talked about how CAWP and the upcoming trial had given her hope that maybe things might change – maybe the minimum monthly allowance would be increased to allow poor families such as hers to meet their daily needs and allow for adequate sanitation and a healthy living environment for her elderly mother, the four children living in the home, as well as the four adults.

Jennifer then led us around to meet other community members with similar water problems. All of the people we met were "makoko's" (meaning "granny's" in Sotho). They were all women over 70 who had lived most of their lives under apartheid and are still fighting for their rights under this new democracy. The makoko that made the greatest impression on me was Serafina. She is 71 years old and still as strong as ever. She spoke about her fight for access to water with a strength of conviction that was powerful for me, being about 40 years younger. She described bypassing the water meters because her pension could not pay for water and without sufficient water at her age, she could not survive. When the police came and told her she must not continue, she dared them to arrest her. The police left defeated, knowing that arresting a 71-year-old woman would create a martyr for the cause.

While I was listen to her sing and shout and swear and laugh, I hoped that I will have the strength to fight when I am her age. Although witnessing the deep suffering of others is emotionally exhausting, its also inspiring for me to know that the struggle continues and that I am a part of the fight for justice.