Higher Education

An Overview on Higher Education

The crisis in higher education is endemic. Higher education requires to be greatly expanded - currently only about 7% of the relevant age group is engaged in studies in institutions of higher studies. The necessary rate of expansion would only be possible with adequate public funding and regulation. In particular, the need to go beyond the elite and to provide access to a wider section of the country's population, means that such expansion cannot be expected from, or left to, private agencies. Yet public funding is being withdrawn from existing institutions and the pressure is on facilitating the entry of private players both local and foreign.

The impetus for the present strategy owes much to the World Bank report brought out in 1994. The report argues that developing countries do not require to invest funds in higher education as primary and secondary education should be their priority. Higher education is termed a `private good' allowing the student-consumer to command a better market value for her skills. Hence it is claimed that governments are justified in leaving development of this sector in commercial, or private, hands as students will be paying for benefits that only they enjoy. This approach fails to appreciate the social necessity of a system of adequate, quality higher education. The capacity for critical, independent thought is both intellectually and democratically significant for a dynamic, independent and modern nation. Further the claim that elementary and secondary education have first priority is short-sighted: where would the trained personnel required for the success of universalised school education come from if not from the system of higher education? The present strategy of utilising the services of poorly paid, inadequately trained para-teachers engaged in multi-grade teaching (also a WB strategy for school education) clearly is no solution and exposes the WB approach which is aimed at creating `alternate' streams instead of a strong national system of quality education envisaged during the freedom struggle and promoted by policy makers in the first three decades or so after independence.

The WB perspective also dovetails smoothly with the perspective underlying the WTO-enforced General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which converts knowledge into a tradeable commodity. The increasingly competitive sphere of a globalized system of higher education is dominated by the industrialized developed countries. Norms, values, language, concerns and scientific innovations at this center crowd out other ideas and research practices. These countries not only have the dominant institutions but are also home to the multinational corporations that are becoming so powerful in the new global knowledge system based on `marketing intellectual products'.

Higher education institutions in developing countries have a special role to play in the strengthening of civil society and national development. If subjected to the WTO strictures, they would be unable to perform this function and the perception that universities serve a broad public good would be accordingly weakened. In a world clearly divided into `centers' and `peripheries', with pronounced inequalities, questions of self-reliance and or sovereignty itself would obviously be adversely affected.



During the period of last two decades a lot of changes have occurred in the Indian system of education in line with the policies prescribed by the World Bank. For example, the country has witnessed a phenomenal increase in the number of technical education institutions. A great deal of this growth has come from the establishment of private, aided as well as self-financing institutions, particularly in engineering, computer application and business management disciplines. Today nearly one crore young people are enrolled in higher educational institutions, of whom about one-fifth are estimated to have been enrolled in technical education. The virtual explosion in the number of technical institutions, fuelled by speculative rather than real demand and exploited by self-financing enterprises, has resulted in technical education expanding beyond sustainable levels. If the systems of planning and regulation are unable to shape the supply and demand in the coming period, such imbalances are very likely to be extended to the other fields too.

Adverse consequences of this mushrooming growth are already visible in the form of supply of poor quality of education by the newly opened higher education institutions (HEIs). In spite of the phenomenal growth vacant seats continue to also exist in many institutions. Vacant seats range from 5 percent to 25 percent depending on the branch, discipline, region and institution. While the faculty to student ratio is generally poor in most of the institutions, it is particularly bad in many of the newly created institutions because of poor infrastructure and serious shortage of adequately qualified teachers, resulting in these institutions churning out poorly educated graduates, who remain unemployed for a considerable period of time.

The employers as well as the educationists are already expressing serious concerns in regard to quality of the graduates coming out of these newly opened institutions of higher and technical education. Barring some exceptions, there is scant regard for maintenance of standards. What is indeed a matter of shock to learn that even those markets that are readymade and where the employers are readily able to hire the talent produced from the sector of higher and technical education the country has failed to create the institutions that are capable to give quality instruction to the manpower. The sector of information technology is one such area where India has witnessed a boom in the education market; however the institutions that were set up during the nineties have failed in providing quality education.

A vast majority of these HEIs have been set up with the aim of imparting only graduate technical education. None of these institutions have any plans to create facilities for research and post graduate education. In the fields of business management, hotel management, architecture, pharmacy and so on the number of Ph.Ds is practically negligible. A serious consequence of an imbalance in the production of sufficient numbers of post-graduates and Ph.Ds. in engineering is the extreme shortage of quality teachers at various levels.



The decade of nineties has been a period of public disinvestment in higher education. The extent of decline in public expenditure on education comes out clearly when we examine the trends in per student expenditure. Decline in per student expenditures means decline in real resources per student on average, seriously affecting the quality of education. As there were steep cuts in budget allocations for libraries, laboratories, scholarships, faculty improvement programmes, etc., it is not difficult to see that there would have been serious adverse effects felt by the higher education institutions. During the decade of nineties the rising cost of higher education is again largely a result of the choice made in favour of the policies of privatisation and commercialisation by the policymakers.

The access to higher education is increasingly becoming a function of paying capacity of the student. Eighty percent of the available engineering seats are in the private sector institutions. The private sector institutions provide over sixty percent of the management seats and over forty percent of the medical seats. The character of private sector institutions is very much commercial in nature and unlike the not-for-profit public sector institutions. But even in the public sector institutions the trend is towards commercialisation. Self-financing courses are on the increase and are affecting the access to higher education in the public sector institutions itself. Even some of the ‘best’ universities-central and state-have chosen to introduce self financing courses even in disciplines such as Economics, Political Science, Social Work, Anthropology, Botany, Zoology, Human genetics Hindi, etc., that are otherwise and / or ought to be provided as normal courses in different universities, charging often fees much higher than the costs, exploiting the ‘excess demand’ phenomenon in higher education.

The practice of increased cost recovery is now very well institutionalized in the case of even the not-for-profit institutions of higher and technical education. The cost recovery rates vary today in their case in the range of twenty five percent to fifty percent. The cost recovery rates are high and have surpassed in some universities the trends of even many developed and developing countries. There exist still very striking differences by economic groups of population in the adult population with respect to their access to higher education. Evidence exists that the trends of privatisation, commercialisation, reduction in financial support to the needy students, increased cost recovery by the public sector educational institutions, cost of specialised coaching for clearing the entrance tests, paid seats, capitation fees, etc., are visibly coming in the way of students who come from the backgrounds of socially and educationally backward class households and the economically deprived sections.

Further, the costs of entry into higher education are becoming higher for the students of these sections due to the factor of increased risk arising on account of the growing uncertainty regarding the work opportunities that the system of education and economy is able to presently generate. After the acquisition of the graduation or post graduation whether the outturns would be able to improve their earnings is an important factor in the decision on whether or not to join a particular course or college for the students of socially and educationally backward classes and economically deprived sections. This has impacted on the students’ choices and in turn the utilisation of capacity created for the faculties of science and humanities in many institutions.


For further communication, please contact:

Sh. Ambarish Rai
Convenor
People's Campaign for Common School System (PCCSS)
E-mail: commonschoolsystem@yahoo.co.in, amb1857@yahoo.com

Press release : 27 February 2007

Widespread Environmental and Social Concerns Brushed Aside during Envtl Public Hearing on massive expansion plans of West Coast Paper Mills, Dandeli, Karnataka
Financiers of Expansion plans include IFC (World Bank) and ICICI Bank

The 20th February 2007 Environmental Public Hearing for the proposed Rs. 1260 crore expansion and modernisation of West Coast Paper Mills Limited (WCPM) was marred by chaotic scenes of heckling, intimidation, and hooliganism. A team from Environment Support Group, Bangalore visited Dandeli and participated in this public hearing. Even as the presiding officer Ritesh Kumar Singh (District Commissioner of Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka) struggled to restore order to the proceedings, a large group of vocal individuals disrupted the proceedings and misbehaved whenever anyone attempted to express any sort of concerns about WCPM’s operations. As a result, the supposedly ‘public’ hearing was reduced to a promotion event for WCPM with company supporters exclusively waxing eloquent about ‘contributions’ to Dandeli and the surrounding areas.

It is ironic indeed that the public hearing under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 (as part of the mandatory environmental clearance mechanism for pulp and paper manufacturing industries) did not permit fair expression of the very significant environmental and health impacts that WCPM has been repeatedly accused of over the years. It is also shocking that potential social and environmental implications of WCPM’s proposal to secure 68,000 hectares of land (680 sq. km, an area larger than Bangalore) within a 250 km radius of Dandeli were not discussed during the Public Hearing or in the Rapid EIA Report prepared for the proposed expansion.

WCPM was promoted in the year 1955 and is a part of the Kolkata based Shree Kumar Bangur Group of Companies. The company, which is located in the Dandeli reserve forests (and less than 10 kilometres from the Dandeli Wilife Sanctuary), draws all its water requirements from the Kali river. Ever since it commenced operations in 1959, WCPM has been discharging effluents from its industrial processes into the Kali river. The mill, which had an installed initial capacity of 18,000 Metric Tonnes Per Annum (MTPA) in 1959 has since increased its capacity almost ten-fold to 1,76,221 MTPA in 2005-06. WCPM now proposes to carry out an expansion cum modernization program to almost double its overall capacity to 320000 TPA. The expansion is likely to be financed by the International Finance Corporation (World Bank group) and ICICI Bank of India.

WCPM has a proven record of non-compliance on various grounds: production in excess of consented quantities, water use in excess of consented limits, effluents discharged in excess of permitted limits, effluents discharged that violate environmental standards, and illegal use of forest land in contravention of stated purpose. All of the above non-compliances are well-documented, either by regulatory agencies like the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board or the Central Pollution Control Board, or by research institutes and NGOs. Yet, there has been no record of redressing these past violations in any manner either by the regulatory agencies or the ministries concerned.

As a result of continued pollution of the Kali river, there has been sufficient empirical evidence of health impacts (in Dandeli and also in downstream areas) on livestock and human beings from a variety of sources including commissioned studies. The most egregious case was that of an outbreak of gastroenteritis in the region in 2003. There is also sufficient recorded empirical evidence of adverse impact on fishes and fisheries, as well as on the impact of using the Kali water for irrigation on agricultural land. Yet, there has not been any study of these impacts and no serious attempts at redressing the damage done thus far. Even if WCPM has cleaned up its act and has installed a functional Effluent Treatment Plant (as has been claimed), these past damages cannot be ignored and have to be redressed. Most notable is the paucity of information on social and environmental implications of WCPM’s proposed use of 68000 hectares (captive plantations to source raw materials).If people are going to be displaced, WCPM has to rehabilitate them prior to any permitted expansion.

All these matters need be addressed before considering WCPM's application for environmental clearance for the expansion of its production. Undoubtedly, Dandeli’s economy and employment is vitally linked to WCPM’s operations, but this cannot excuse the company’s non-fulfilment of legal and social obligations.
A written representation by ESG highlighting these issues was subsequently submitted by ESG to the Uttara Kannada District Commissioner, and a copy of the representation can be downloaded from www.esgindia.org.
Leo Saldanha
Coordinator
Environment Support Group

Water Privatisation and Commercialisation

Privatisation of Water in Mumbai’s K East Ward: Many Questions, Few Answers

Tuesday 16 January 2007 by Manthan Adhyayan Kendra

Privatisation of Water in Mumbai’s K East Ward: Many Questions, Few Answers
As Mumbai prepares for elections to the Municipal Corporation, an issue of heated debate is likely to be the proposed privatisation of water services in one of Mumbai’s largest wards, the K East.

Early last year, forced by intense protests, the Delhi government dropped its plans to hand over management of water in two zones to private companies. The protests, led by Parivartan, had used the Right to Information Act to obtain key documents related to the project. These documents showed that the privatisation, pushed by the World Bank, would involve appointment of four expatriate ‘experts’ in each zone of Delhi’s 21 water zones, with every one of these experts being paid US$ 24,000 (Rs. 11 lakh) per month. This would have meant that 65% of the Delhi Jal Board’s annual operation and maintenance expenditure would have gone to pay for just these 84 experts. And in the process, water tariffs would have shot up almost 10 times.
Apparently blissfully ignorant of these developments in Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) has embarked upon an identical scheme, with results likely to be identical.

In January 2006, an agreement was signed with Castalia, French consulting firm based in New Zealand to develop a pilot project for privatisation of the water system in K East ward of Mumbai. This consultancy has been funded through a US$ 692,500 grant by the Private Public Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), a multi-donor agency run by the World Bank. If this project is successfully implemented, it will be extended to the rest of the city.
In the wake of huge controversies raging in the world and in India on privatisation of water, this project raises a large number of questions.

Is it Privatisation?
Indeed, such has been the experience worldwide of water privatisation that the very word privatisation tends to spark off a reaction. Due to this, the MCGM, has been at pains to deny that this project involves any privatisation. But the reality is completely different.
The terms of reference (TOR) given to the consultant states, in “A Precise Statement of Objectives” that “MCGM envisages to award a "Water Distribution Improvement Contract" to a professional Operator to demonstrate, in a selected pilot area, that it is possible to achieve an improved water supply service....”. Indeed, the very involvement of PPIAF indicates that privatisation is involved, for the PPIAF has been set up with the express aim of “ helping developing countries improve the quality of their infrastructure through private sector involvement.” The answer to the question ’Is it privatisation’ is a loud and unambiguous ’Yes’.
The MCGM is taking recourse to a rather specious argument in this matter. It says that the project does not involve privatisation as the assets would remain under the ownership of MCGM. However, this is not a correct notion – privatisation comes in many forms, including management contracts, service contracts, concession agreements and asset sale is only one form privatisation.

The project in Delhi which had to be dropped under massive protests was in fact exactly the same kind of management contract that Castalia has been asked to develop for K East ward. Indeed, the TOR indicates that privatisation even deeper than management contract may be possible, and even sale of assets cannot be ruled out.
An interesting aside to the whole issue is that so afraid is MCGM of using the word privatisation, that even the name of the project has been changed from the formal “Development of a Pilot Private Sector Participation Model for Drinking Water Distribution in Mumbai” to the more neutral sounding “Water Distribution Improvement Project.”

Will it lead to tariff increase?
The key question associated with privatisation is whether the project would lead to tariff increase. Evidence from all over the world has shown that tariffs shoot up on privatisation. Water tariffs went up 500% in Manila, 300% in Cochabamba, 700% in Guinea on privatisation. Yet, MCGM says that there will be no tariff increase due to this project. If this is so, why doesn’t the TOR indicate this as a criteria to the consultant? Why doesn’t it specifically require the consultant to develop the project while maintaining the existing tariffs? On the contrary, the TOR mentions that this project is a part of larger reforms that include “defining a pricing strategy to recover cost”, which means elimination of all subsidies and an increase in tariffs. It also talks of reducing the distortions due to tariff structures.

All these are clear pointers that tariffs are likely to rise on project implementation.
However, the most important issue in this regards lies elsewhere. One of the main justifications given for privatisation of water systems worldwide is that public operators are highly loss-making entities and have no money for new investments, and private sector will bring in this capital. But the water system of the MCGM in general and K East in particular is making huge profits. Total water revenue in just the K East ward is 661.7 million rupees and operating cost is Rs. 65 million, so the net profit is Rs. 596.7 million or about 60 crore rupees.
The real question is – is privatisation being pushed to corner a part of this huge profit, initially of K East ward, and then of the whole MCGM water system? Otherwise, why the push for privatisation? Apart from lack of resources, the other major justification given for privatisation is that the private sector will be more efficient.

The Myth of Efficiency
However, studies and experiences all over the world show that efficiency of operation is not the monopoly of private sector - there are many examples of efficient public sector water utilities (as also inefficient ones!) while performance of private sector is not always better. The World Bank Economic Review says that studies on water utilities in Asia, “show that efficiency is not significantly different in private companies than in public ones”. A study of 18 Asian cities done for the Asian Development Bank states that “Chengdu, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Manila have Private Sector Participation (PSP) in water supply, but the main reasons for PSP (efficiency, investments, and autonomy) have not been manifested to date."

Indeed, the conditions of operation and systems to ensure transparency and accountability are far more important to ensure efficiency than privatisation.
There is there is little reason to believe then, that private operators will necessarily operate the K East water system better than the MCGM. This bolsters the suspicion that the reason for privatisation seems to be the huge profits of the ward.

Broader Questions
The K East project therefore raises a number of broader questions. Why is privatisation being selected a priori as a solution? The MCGM claims to have carried out several studies and explorations to understand the problems of the water sector in Mumbai and its possible solutions. What are the problems identified by these studies? And have they recommended privatisation as a solution? This is not clear at all, and the MCGM has not put these studies in front of the public.
This furthers suspicion that privatisation is being pushed at the behest of other agencies, for corporate profits. It is not widely known that USAID had earlier pushed for a similar privatisation of water in the cities of Sangli-Miraj in Maharashtra, but this was abandoned after strong protests led by the municipal councillors, who too had been kept in the dark! The current attempt in K East is being pushed by the World Bank. It is significant that the contract for developing a water project for K East ward of Mumbai has been signed by Castalia with the World Bank and not the MCGM. Moreover, the TOR requires that all the aspects of the project that will be developed have to be in conformity with the Bank’s procurement guidelines and that “The World Bank clearance … be sought by MCGM on key processing steps..”
This is nothing but an onslaught on autonomy and independence of the MCGM and by reflection of the citizens of Mumbai. Why is the MCGM accepting this? Thus, the questions raised by the project range from economic ones like increased tariffs, possible profiteering by multinational corporations to the more fundamental ones of people’s sovereignty.
It is important all these questions be asked, and be answered before proceeding ahead with this project. What better time to do this then when the city prepares itself for elections?


Shripad Dharmadhikary manthan_b@sancharnet.in
Shripad Dharmadhikary is coordinator of the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra.

BACKGROUND IN WHICH THE WORLD BANK IS GAINING STRENGTH IN INDIA

Since 1991, the process of neo-liberalism has been greatly accelerated by the new economic policies which have been brought in by the Indian government under the garb of ‘structural adjustments’ ostensibly to rescue itself from financial disaster। These policies have been blueprinted by the World Bank and the IMF in response to the government’s request for badly-needed foreign exchange loans.

Significantly, the earlier project-based role of the World Bank in India has moved to a much more powerful policy-based role। We must now question whether national and state policies are being set in India or in Washington, where the World Bank is headquartered।

Invariably, the worst sufferers of the degradation that is taking place are the most vulnerable section of society – forest dwellers, fisher workers, labour, dalits, farmers, women, children, rural and urban poor।

The WBG is best known for its fi nancing of large infrastructure projects, such as big dams (Sardar Sarovar is the classic example), power plants, highways, etc. These have often resulted in widescale environmental destruction, displacement of large numbers of people and impoverishment of others (through losing access to natural resources,etc.) Since 1991, as a result of India’s foreign exchange crisis, WBG has also given large loans for “structural adjustment” – the name given to a set of neoliberal economic policies which the government has been forced to adopt in return for hard currency liquidity. These policies include privatisation of public services (such as health, education, telephones, water and electric supply); reduction in state subsidies and increased user fees in public services; reoriented economic production towards export; and increased foreign investment and MNC control of the economy. These policies have been promoted as “poverty reduction” or “pro-growth,” but their primary purpose has been to increase the state’s foreign exchange reserves so that hard currency debts (to the World Bank, IMF and private lenders) can be paid off. The degree to which they are responsible for increased economic growth is debatable; but they have clearly been responsible for a growing gap between rich and poor and, in many cases, absolute increases in poverty.

The WBG is problematic not only because of its projects and policies but also its methodology. It operates in greater secrecy than even multinational corporations, as it is not subject to any disclosure laws, and treats its agreements with national governments as state secrets. Because of its control over international capital flows, it is in a position to dictate terms to the government and uses this power to circumvent democratic processes which might seek alternative economic policies. When existing bodies (panchayats, councils, etc.) are not to its liking, the WBG has been known to set up parallel governance structures to implement its projects, thus rendering irrelevant the
nation’s democratic structure. Its loans are sovereign debt, so regardless of the success or failure of its projects, the nation as a whole is obliged to repay them. The WBG determines the loan and attached conditions, but in case of failure, all costs are borne by the people, who are excluded from the decision-making process. Finally, as a treaty organisation, the WBG has claimed immunity from lawsuits.

All of these activities have been strongly criticised at the national and international levels, and every few decades, the WBG has issued a mea culpa and announced a drastic change in direction. The changes are always cosmetic; programs are renamed and reshuffled, but the WBG continues to extend its influence over borrowing countries and reinforce its neoliberal policies.

The World Bank, in its Country Report for India, sets out its plan for the years
2005-2008. It categorically mentions three areas in which it will do substantial lending:
1. infrastructure (road, transport, power, water supply and sanitation, irrigation, and urban development)
2. human development (education, health, social protection)
3. rural livelihoods, with an emphasis on community-driven approaches).
Particular regional focus is on Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh.

In addition to lending, the World Bank exercises influence through its role as a “knowledge provider.” Knowledge and ideology have always been important components of power. In recent years, with greater quantities of private capital being available to India, the World Bank has attempted to forestall a loss of influence by cornering the marketing on “development knowledge.” In effect, it is creating the intellectual rationale and justification for privatisation and globalisation, even as these policies have come under increased criticism globally.

Vast amounts of “knowledge” – studies, analysis, surveys, and reports – are being produced by International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and highly paid international consultants to push the LPG (‘liberalization, privatization and globalization’) process. In many cases, public policy and development projects are proposed, evaluated, financed, and implemented by these same institutions. It is clear from its World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for India for 2005-2008, that the WBG views itself at the center of creating an intellectual base for pushing its formulation of development policies. This CAS will determine the strategy and priorities of the Bank’s lending to India for the next three years. Among the “Strategic Principles” that will “underpin the Bank Group’s work” in India is: That “the Bank will… aim to substantially expand its role as a politically realistic knowledge provider and generator.”

The World Bank has been so successful in spreading its neo-liberal philosophy that the independence of bureaucrats and politicians must now be questioned. The World Bank offers staff exchange programs, training sessions, junkets, seminars, and publications to the very individuals who negotiate with the Bank on behalf of the Indian people. As a result, alternatives to neo-liberalism find no champion within the Bank-government
relationship

Aiding the World Bank and other multilateral agencies in this are a few well-known (and very expensive) international consultants who are paid huge sums (which come to the country as grants or loans) to prepare water sector reform plans, privatisation plans and who even draft legislation to give effect to these. For example, the water sector reforms for Delhi have been designed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers through a project that was funded by the World Bank. The ADB gave a grant that funded a British consultant Halcrow to prepare integrated water management plan for Madhya Pradesh, which led to a World Bank loan for water sector “reforms” - a euphemism for privatisation and commercialisation of natural and common resources.

Introducing the Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank in India

For several years, local groups and grassroots organisations have been opposed to the intervention of multilateral agencies in India's economy and development. At various stages, there has been strong project-based opposition to the World Bank in different parts of the country. Consequently, in the last few years the Bank has modified its lending patterns, concentrating more on policy-based lending, as against project-based lending.
The retrogressive impact of the Bank's intervention is being felt throughout the country by almost all marginal and impoverished sections of society. Given the scale of damage, many groups have come together to organise a People's Tribunal on the Impact of the World Bank Group in India.

The purpose behind the Tribunal is to provide a just forum for people who have suffered because of projects and policies funded or promoted by the World Bank Group. The Tribunal is an opportunity to express their grievances and propose alternatives.

The process has been formalised through several consultations with groups, individuals and organizations in various parts of the country. At the National Consultation on Housing and the Urban Poor held in Mumbai in October 2005, where over two hundred groups participated, a call was issued to take the Tribunal forward.

A Tribunal of this size on the World Bank will be the first of its kind in India. The Tribunal endeavours to investigate the effects of the Bank's policies, not only sectorally, but also nationally and institutionally. Some of the key aspects that the Tribunal will look into are the Bank's impact on the sovereignty of the nation, the link with senior bureaucrats and government officials (the revolving door) and fiscal indebtedness.

We seek support from all of you who oppose neo-liberal policies and have great concern for global justice, we hope that you and the networks you are associated with will participate and endorse the Independent People's Tribunal on the Impact of the World Bank Group in India scheduled between 21 to 24 September,2007.

Please share your thoughts with us on any of the following themes or sectors:

Themes:

1. Private Sector ownership of the bank
2. World Bank as Knowledge Provider
3. Governance, Democracy and Sovereignity
4. Impact of the World Bank on Poverty and Unemployment
5. Environmental policy and legislation

Sectors:

1. Agriculture
2. Education
3. Health
4. Food Security
5. Water
6. Power
7. Forests and Fisheries
8. Judicial Reform
9. Mining
10. Toxics and industry
11. Transport
12. Urban Renewal/ Urban Poor Power

You can mail your suggestions and opinions on secretariat@worldbanktribunal.org

Visit our website: www.worldbanktribunal.org