Hey,

I don't know if this news has reached the States or not, but here in India the govt. just OKed the entry of chains like Walmart into India, and it's sparked off a furore with everybody saying it's going to put small Indian retailers out of business etc.

I'd like to ask you guys, what d'you think? If you have a big supermarket where you live, do you think it's a good thing? What would you like to say to the Indian govt.?

domainator2010 said:

Hey,

I don't know if this news has reached the States or not, but here in India the govt. just OKed the entry of chains like Walmart into India, and it's sparked off a furore with everybody saying it's going to put small Indian retailers out of business etc.

I'd like to ask you guys, what d'you think? If you have a big supermarket where you live, do you think it's a good thing? What would you like to say to the Indian govt.?

Yes, unfortunately your small businesses are done for! Wal-Mart will take over - no doubt. I myself, go to wal-mart for things like soda, waters, household cleaning supplies, - as for my food I go to the green organic grocery (I'm not eating no Walmart meat! ) but in this economy you have to save where you can and honestly, Walmart is signifigantly lower on prices than almost anywhere. and not just by a few nickles, on some items they are dollars less and that adds up. Why would you buy a hammer from your local hardward store for 8.99 when you can get one at Wal-mart for 2.99? Seriously- that's why they're ruling the world.

I dont think Walmart puts business out of business if the business is a good place to begin with... Some of these so called "mom and pop" places have been taking advantage of the places that had no competition.. I find walmarts a great thing for the economy... Step it up, or shut it down!

Yes and no.

Wal-Mart has an unfair advantage when it comes to purchasing. They buy in such huge volume that they get discounts other retailers have no chance of competing with.

Wal-Mart also treats their employees HORRIBLY. The multi-BILLION dollar corporation pays minimum wage with just enough medical insurance to call it insurance, but not enough to really cover.

But hey, their prices are low.

well heck why not? the reason walmart dominates the retaill scene is its prices re low low low. and, it keeps those prices low by basing its manufacturing sector in....guess where? india. china, other nations where workers get paid very low wages, and there is little to no no government oversight with respect to EPA issues. so helllo india! now you get to buy what you make.....

[Edited 9/21/12 9:31am]

i have a close relative that has worked at walmart for years, they get paid pretty well for what they do, and have good medical coverage. and they started in the shoe dept. & worked their way up to management. people love to pick on walmart, but many of the other retail companies are actually much worse than walmart when it comes to medical and full-time employment. if you haven't worked for the company then you're just going off of a lot of lies that you read online that are put out there by the unions.

uniden said:

i have a close relative that has worked at walmart for years, they get paid pretty well for what they do, and have good medical coverage. and they started in the shoe dept. & worked their way up to management. people love to pick on walmart, but many of the other retail companies are actually much worse than walmart when it comes to medical and full-time employment. if you haven't worked for the company then you're just going off of a lot of lies that you read online that are put out there by the unions.

Well said!

domainator2010 said:

Hey,

I don't know if this news has reached the States or not, but here in India the govt. just OKed the entry of chains like Walmart into India, and it's sparked off a furore with everybody saying it's going to put small Indian retailers out of business etc.

I'd like to ask you guys, what d'you think? If you have a big supermarket where you live, do you think it's a good thing? What would you like to say to the Indian govt.?

Watch and make up your own mind.

My mom works for Walmart. She makes minimum wage and has horrible insurance.

everytime i see something horrible in this economy ... i say it is the "walmarting of america" ...

everything is cheap . fast . and noone who works there is making any money .

NOT TO SAY THERE ARENT A MANAGER OR 2 MAKIN MONEY

my job , has become so much like walmart (i work in the financial industry field of banking ).

They want my reports fast and cheap . DO not care about quality , in general .

I rarely shop at walmart .

I am on the fence about Walmart.. I hate how they dominate the retail market, but I appreciate how convenient it is for people who can not get around to a lot of different places, to have a "one-stop shop"

For the most part, I'd rather avoid them, but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't run in there in a pinch.

In a country like India though that has such an individual culture, I can't see generic ass Wal-Mart putting local businesses out though.

thekidsgirl said:

I am on the fence about Walmart.. I hate how they dominate the retail market, but I appreciate how convenient it is for people who can not get around to a lot of different places, to have a "one-stop shop"

For the most part, I'd rather avoid them, but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't run in there in a pinch.

In a country like India though that has such an individual culture, I can't see generic ass Wal-Mart putting local businesses out though.

I totally agree. I avoid them for the most part. I hate shopping there aesthetically (and I much prefer Target for a mega-store). Something about the layout and the lights and the people...and the fact that there is zero personality.

But I have gotten some $5 shorts there when I needed them on vacation and did not know where else to go! It's incredibly cheap & convenient.

tinaz said:

I dont think Walmart puts business out of business if the business is a good place to begin with... Some of these so called "mom and pop" places have been taking advantage of the places that had no competition.. I find walmarts a great thing for the economy... Step it up, or shut it down!

What you don't pay out of pocket at walmart you pay in tax to help support their workers families

and let's not forget the cost of blighted downtown neighborhoods because there are no shops there.

or the cost of people unemployed because a WalMart moved nearby. A WalMart could never fully employ an entire town.

never been there, never spent a dime there.

uniden said:

i have a close relative that has worked at walmart for years, they get paid pretty well for what they do, and have good medical coverage. and they started in the shoe dept. & worked their way up to management. people love to pick on walmart, but many of the other retail companies are actually much worse than walmart when it comes to medical and full-time employment. if you haven't worked for the company then you're just going off of a lot of lies that you read online that are put out there by the unions.

Wallmart has programs in place to show their employees how to get state aid for food and healthcare. In Washington state the employer with the most people on state aid is Wallmart. Meaning we the tax payers pay for most of their food and healthcare coverage, not to mention some rent money. So, the low cost of goods is not a low cost at all. It's a drain on public resources.

Wallmart considers 28 hours full time employment.

How come Costco can pay their employees living wage and good healthcare benefits and Wallmart can't? Both are successful companies. The only reason they wouldn't is greed, lack of ethics and compassion.

Wallmart has a history of under pricing competition out of business and then raising prices after the competition is gone. It is part of the business strategy-therefore you are not getting the best price always.

RenHoek said:

and let's not forget the cost of blighted downtown neighborhoods because there are no shops there.

or the cost of people unemployed because a WalMart moved nearby. A WalMart could never fully employ an entire town.

never been there, never spent a dime there.

So, you can go from a small town with 15 store managers operating 15 stores down to 3 stores operated by 3 store managers. Leaving less money for the community to invest in. Because local business generally spend their extra revenues in town, while Wallmart sends theirs out of town.

So, you now have 12 empty buildings not creating revenue but creating a dead part of town.

Although, Wallmart will generate a lot of money, they get big tax breaks and sometimes don't contribute at all or very little to local economy. So, the local economy sometimes gets less money overall with the Wallmart in town.

it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. i can't see how it could possibly work in a place like india where there is dire poverty

of course, it will rake in a few quid from the less deprived, it would create employment, farmers might benefit but on the whole it would upset the balance BIG time, 4 a start u can't barter at walmart!

why pay 100 rupee for a bag of rice when u can nip round the corner & get the bloke at the market down to 20?! even the socially elite like a bargain, they are rich 4 a reason, culturally they willl not pay over the odds

just an example of their forsight, a few years ago i travelled through, people working on the land, it was primitive stuff, not a tractor in sight. a local person explained that the government spent millions & gave machinery to the farmers but they refused to use as it replaced people, meant less jobs 4 people. so i dunno, i imagine the people will determine the success of the walmarts

I think some more fundamental questions have to be asked, rather than just the comments that have been posted here - WHY is Walmart so big? Surely it got that way for a reason? Why didn't the small shops do so as well? If it offers better deals and THEREFORE puts other small shops out of business, well, I see nothing Wrong with that....?

Having said that, my general impression of these guys is that they're nasty motherfuckers, and I don't think I'll be TOO happy giving them money.

domainator2010 said:

I think some more fundamental questions have to be asked, rather than just the comments that have been posted here - WHY is Walmart so big? Surely it got that way for a reason? Why didn't the small shops do so as well? If it offers better deals and THEREFORE puts other small shops out of business, well, I see nothing Wrong with that....?

Having said that, my general impression of these guys is that they're nasty motherfuckers, and I don't think I'll be TOO happy giving them money.

in the uk we have tescos & despite having 12 shops in a 6mile radius i don't mind coughing up a little more money to support support smaller shops so hopefully they don't go out of business.

tescos have got so greedy, buying up every bit of potential space, fu%^&* disgusting... they demolish communities! people are furious

the irony is that it's the 'paki' shops that are their competition & they are giving them a run 4 their money.. they are canny businessmen, they will do a deal, u get great service & many let people run a tab if they are a bit skint

lauralevesque said:

domainator2010 said:

Hey,

I don't know if this news has reached the States or not, but here in India the govt. just OKed the entry of chains like Walmart into India, and it's sparked off a furore with everybody saying it's going to put small Indian retailers out of business etc.

I'd like to ask you guys, what d'you think? If you have a big supermarket where you live, do you think it's a good thing? What would you like to say to the Indian govt.?

Yes, unfortunately your small businesses are done for! Wal-Mart will take over - no doubt. I myself, go to wal-mart for things like soda, waters, household cleaning supplies, - as for my food I go to the green organic grocery (I'm not eating no Walmart meat! ) but in this economy you have to save where you can and honestly, Walmart is signifigantly lower on prices than almost anywhere. and not just by a few nickles, on some items they are dollars less and that adds up. Why would you buy a hammer from your local hardward store for 8.99 when you can get one at Wal-mart for 2.99? Seriously- that's why they're ruling the world.

Not entirely true at all. Walmart failed miserably here in Germany and was only able to last for a few years before they were bought out and replaced by a low-cost German superstore retailer REAL.

The problem is that while Walmart could "sort of" compete with large food retailers (though not hold the larger market share), here- they had absolutely ZERO clue into German culture and aesthetic and their buyers stocked the store with the most ridiculous merchandise (clothing or otherwise) that no one was interested in; it just didn't fit German lifestyle or taste, and the prices weren't nearly as low for said products as what it would be in the United States, and were often more expensive than the competition. There was really no value in what they were offering.

If people want cute inexpensive clothes they go to C&A or EU retailer H&M (hell, when they have end of season sales of 70% you can snatch up shirts for $5 or fashionable winter coats for $25). When people want furniture here they head over to the local Scandinavian reatiler IKEA (where I just picked up a 3pc. ceramic set of casserole dishes for 5 Euros/$6.25). So using my own experience with the "here today gone 2 seconds later" Walmart experiment, not EVERY business model fits into EVERY customer demographic and a global level.

You also have to remember that different countries have different attitudes towards driving and transportation to large stores: in the country where I live people shop locally, we ride our bikes everywhere, even to the grocery store (which I'm actually about to do in 10 minutes). We have farmer's markets several times a week thoughout our cities, the nearest one to me being4 blocks away. Even in our large supermarket chain REWE there is great care taken to advertise and sell products offered from the farmers in each store's respective geographic region- where I'm about to go pick up sald lettuce grown about 50 miles from here for 39cents.

I do wish to gawd that TARGET would go international---their entire brand image and marketing is more more in alighment with European style and I'm convinced they would do exceptionally well without having to change too much to appeal to customers here. Their ads &v campaigns are perfect as they are, and the clean simplicity of alot of their merchandise- that would work very well here.

As for whether or not Walmart would work in India- that remains to be seen. There are so many factors to consider. I'm not sure either way to be honest, but if the level of market research they put into appealing to German clientele is any indication of how much they ovestimate their potential appeal to markets different from the American one... then it's iffy.

I buy all of my three-striped gym socks, tighty whities, epson salts, & Musilex/'Tussin brand of cure-alls from there.



Oh and when I say "from there",
I mean Walmart.
Not India.
Though,
now that I think about it,
it wouldn't surprised me if some of those products were originally manufactured in India. I mean, if I remember the movie Gandhi correctly, alot of the people there tend to spin their own tighty whities. So obviously, logistical thinking would lead to me to believe that, with the size of their population, some of 'em must've gotten good enough to be able to work in any one of the sweatshops that produce those kinds of items.
But then again, I could be thinking of South America. I dunno. I don't usually put as much as attention as I probably should into this type of information whenever any of it crosses into my field of radar.

Welcome to the world of monopolies and the decline of unique products.

thekidsgirl said:

I am on the fence about Walmart.. I hate how they dominate the retail market, but I appreciate how convenient it is for people who can not get around to a lot of different places, to have a "one-stop shop"

For the most part, I'd rather avoid them, but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't run in there in a pinch.

In a country like India though that has such an individual culture, I can't see generic ass Wal-Mart putting local businesses out though.

I don't know much about India other than it has some of the most delicious and unique tasting food I have ever put in my mouth. To find those seasonings and spices in my area, they certainly can't be found in the grocery section of Walmart or many of the other grocery chains. You have to go to the area of town where all the hip artsy/farsty types live and they have various shops in that area with different and unique items.

But I'm sure what Walmart will do when they get to India, is start stocking their shelves with those items that have up until now, been unique to that area. They will no longer be unique once Walmart gets them. I saw a documentary on Walmart a few years ago and they were opening up stores in either Japan or China, I can't remember which one. They didn't look like the Walmarts here in America. They were stocked with items they had studied that the street vendors had been selling. Once the Walmart got kicked off, I bet some of those street vendors went out of business because they no longer had a unique item anymore and Walmart probably sold it for much cheaper.

.

.

.

[Edited 9/22/12 6:54am]

Visionnaire said:

with the size of their population, some of 'em must've gotten good enough to be able to work in any one of the sweatshops that produce those kinds of items.

Some of them must have GOTTEN GOOD ENOUGH to work at the sweatshops that make clothes for our Lords and Masters in America???!!!! Do you even KNOW what you're saying? I just wish I could meet you in person, you little piece of shit!

Ottensen said:

I do wish to gawd that TARGET would go international---their entire brand image and marketing is more more in alighment with European style and I'm convinced they would do exceptionally well without having to change too much to appeal to customers here. Their ads &v campaigns are perfect as they are, and the clean simplicity of alot of their merchandise- that would work very well here.

Target's opening in Canada this year. It's the first international expansion. I don't know anything about other plans but I can only assume it will stretch further in the future.

CarrieMpls said:

Ottensen said:

I do wish to gawd that TARGET would go international---their entire brand image and marketing is more more in alighment with European style and I'm convinced they would do exceptionally well without having to change too much to appeal to customers here. Their ads &v campaigns are perfect as they are, and the clean simplicity of alot of their merchandise- that would work very well here.

Target's opening in Canada this year. It's the first international expansion. I don't know anything about other plans but I can only assume it will stretch further in the future.

From your keyboard to God's ears ....and I'm telling you, they won't have to change anything from the Target aesthetic, either---it's so perfect for here it's ridiculous. I see their ads when I watch ABC clips of shows online---it's just clean and pragmatic with a hint of sleekness and has mass appeal in a way that Walmart totally failed Germany. I think you guys can do in central and Northern Europe what H&M and IKEA was able to do in the States...cause people don't mind having choices, they want choices in their merchandise---but it's gotta be for stuff they actually want, can use, and appeals to their sense of style. I have "Merona" brand separates in neutral colors (trench, pants, shirts) that are 15+ years old & have carried me from fashion show weeks to weekends in the countryside here and fit in perfectly with the lifestyle....and I think the home goods you find in Target add a layer of lushness that is not commonly found in the central European design aesthetic unless you shell out a LARGE amount of dough at very exclusive German retailers for it.

Hope this comes to pass in the next 5 years---I'd be stoked.

domainator2010 said:

Hey,

I don't know if this news has reached the States or not, but here in India the govt. just OKed the entry of chains like Walmart into India, and it's sparked off a furore with everybody saying it's going to put small Indian retailers out of business etc.

I'd like to ask you guys, what d'you think? If you have a big supermarket where you live, do you think it's a good thing? What would you like to say to the Indian govt.?

No offense, but this post is meaningless without more background.

The inefficiency in Indian retail hurts the poor and protects ineffciency.

India is allowing Wal-Mart in, but the restrictions mean Wal-Mart will not look like Wal-Mart in the U.S.

They won't be able to adequately service customers and small businesses, which are already heavily protected will continue to be.

It costs Indians dearly, but the entire economy is one big inefficient mess. India should be keeping pace with China, but they are falling further behind.

Despite all the businesses Wal-Mart has replaced, are people paying higher prices? They are not.

Do you want to pay higher prices from local retailers with fewer options, or take more options at lower prices?

XxAxX said:

well heck why not? the reason walmart dominates the retaill scene is its prices re low low low. and, it keeps those prices low by basing its manufacturing sector in....guess where? india. china, other nations where workers get paid very low wages, and there is little to no no government oversight with respect to EPA issues. so helllo india! now you get to buy what you make.....

[Edited 9/21/12 9:31am]

No goverrnment oversight in India with respect to EPA issues?

Low wages in India? Lower, yes, but there are lower wages in Bangledesh (next door to India), Myanmar, Indonesia, Vietnam and Sri Lanka (also next door) for starters.

[EDITED]

General

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA)

This Act is an umbrella legislation designed to provide a framework for the co-ordination of central and state authorities established under the Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981. Under this Act, the central government is empowered to take measures necessary to protect and improve the quality of the environment by setting standards for emissions and discharges; regulating the location of industries; management of hazardous wastes, and protection of public health and welfare.

From time to time the central government issues notifications under the EPA for the protection of ecologically-sensitive areas or issues guidelines for matters under the EPA.

Some notifications issued under this Act are:

Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cell were introduced in 1989 with the view to protect the environment, nature and health in connection with gene technology and micro-organisms, under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The government in 1991, further decided to institute a national label scheme for environmentally-friendly products called the �ECOMARK�. The scheme attempts to provide incentives to manufactures and importers to reduce adverse environmental impacts, reward genuine initiatives by companies, and improve the quality of the environment and sustainability of available resources. Besides the above attempts, notifications pertaining to Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage Rules, 1999 were also incorporated under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986.

The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

These rules lay down the procedures for setting standards of emission or discharge of environmental pollutants. The Rules prescribe the parameters for the Central Government, under which it can issue orders of prohibition and restrictions on the location and operation of industries in different areas. The Rules lay down the procedure for taking samples, serving notice, submitting samples for analysis and laboratory reports. The functions of the laboratories are also described under the Rules along with the qualifications of the concerned analysts.

The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997

This Act provided for the establishment of a National Environment Appellate Authority to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industry operation or process or class of industries, operations or processes could not carry out or would be allowed to carry out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

In addition to these, various Acts specific to the coal sector have been enacted. The first attempts in this direction can be traced back to the Mines Act, 1952, which promoted health and safety standards in coal mines. Later the Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act (1974) came up for conservation of coal during mining operations. For conservation and development of oil and natural gas resources a similar legislation was enacted in 1959.

Hazardous wastes

There are several legislation that directly or indirectly deal with hazardous waste. The relevant legislation are the Factories Act, 1948, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and some notifications under the Environmental Protection Act of 1986. A brief description of each of these is given below.

Under the EPA 1986, the MoEF has issued several notifications to tackle the problem of hazardous waste management. These include:

Factories Act, 1948 and its Amendment in 1987

The Factories Act, 1948 was a post-independence statute that explicitly showed concern for the environment. The primary aim of the 1948 Act has been to ensure the welfare of workers not only in their working conditions in the factories but also their employment benefits. While ensuring the safety and health of the workers, the Act contributes to environmental protection. The Act contains a comprehensive list of 29 categories of industries involving hazardous processes, which are defined as a process or activity where unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or the finished products, by-products, wastes or effluents would:

Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA), 1991

The Act covers accidents involving hazardous substances and insurance coverage for these. Where death or injury results from an accident, this Act makes the owner liable to provide relief as is specified in the Schedule of the Act. The PLIA was amended in 1992, and the Central Government was authorized to establish the Environmental Relief Fund, for making relief payments.

National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995

The Act provided strict liability for damages arising out of any accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the establishment of a National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident, with a view to give relief and compensation for damages to persons, property and the environment and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.[2]

International agreements on environmental issues

India is signatory to a number of multilateral environment agreements (MEA) and conventions. An overview of some of the major MEAs and India�s obligations under these is presented below. These are discussed at length in the respective chapters.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), 1973

The aim of CITES is to control or prevent international commercial trade in endangered species or products derived from them. CITES does not seek to directly protect endangered species or curtail development practices that destroy their habitats. Rather, it seeks to reduce the economic incentive to poach endangered species and destroy their habitat by closing off the international market. India became a party to the CITES in 1976. International trade in all wild flora and fauna in general and species covered under CITES is regulated jointly through the provisions of The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the Import/Export policy of Government of India and the Customs Act 1962 (Bajaj, 1996).

Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer), 1987

The Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer, came into force in 1989. The protocol set targets for reducing the consumption and production of a range of ozone depleting substances (ODS). In a major innovation the Protocol recognized that all nations should not be treated equally. The agreement acknowledges that certain countries have contributed to ozone depletion more than others. It also recognizes that a nation�s obligation to reduce current emissions should reflect its technological and financial ability to do so. Because of this, the agreement sets more stringent standards and accelerated phase-out timetables to countries that have contributed most to ozone depletion (Divan and Rosencranz, 2001).

India acceded to the Montreal Protocol along with its London Amendment in September 1992. The MoEF has established an Ozone Cell and a steering committee on the Montreal Protocol to facilitate implementation of the India Country Program, for phasing out ODS production by 2010.

To meet India�s commitments under the Montreal Protocol, the Government of India has also taken certain policy decisions.

The Gazette of India on 19 July 2000 notified rules for regulation of ODS phase-out called the Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. They were notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These rules were drafted by the MoEF following consultations with industries and related government departments.

Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes, 1989

Basel Convention, which entered into force in 1992, has three key objectives:

India ratified the Basel Convention in 1992, shortly after it came into force. The Indian Hazardous Wastes Management Rules Act 1989, encompasses some of the Basel provisions related to the notification of import and export of hazardous waste, illegal traffic, and liability.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992

The primary goals of the UNFCCC were to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the global climate. The convention embraced the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities which has guided the adoption of a regulatory structure.

India signed the agreement in June 1992, which was ratified in November 1993. As per the convention the reduction/limitation requirements apply only to developed countries. The only reporting obligation for developing countries relates to the construction of a GHG inventory. India has initiated the preparation of its First National Communication (base year 1994) that includes an inventory of GHG sources and sinks, potential vulnerability to climate change, adaptation measures and other steps being taken in the country to address climate change. The further details on UNFCC and the Kyoto Protocol are provided in Atmosphere and climate chapter.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a legally binding, framework treaty that has been ratified until now by 180 countries. The CBD has three main thrust areas: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their sustainable use.

The Convention on Biological Diversity came into force in 1993. Many biodiversity issues are addressed in the convention, including habitat preservation, intellectual property rights, biosafety, and indigenous peoples� rights.

India�s initiatives under the Convention are detailed in the chapter on Biodiversity. These include the promulgation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, amended in 1991; and participation in several international conventions such as CITES.

UN Convention on Desertification, 1994

Delegates to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED ) recommended establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating committee for the elaboration of an international convention to combat desertification in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification. The UN General Assembly established such a committee in 1992 that later helped formulation of Convention on Desertification in 1994.

The convention is distinctive as it endorses and employs a bottom-up approach to international environmental cooperation. Under the terms of the convention, activities related to the control and alleviation of desertification and its effects are to be closely linked to the needs and participation of local land-users and non-governmental organizations. Seven countries in the South Asian region are signatories to the Convention, which aims at tackling desertification through national, regional and sub-regional action programmes. The Regional Action Programme has six Thematic Programme Networks (TPN's) for the Asian region, each headed by a country task manager. India hosts the network on agroforestry and soil conservation. For details refer to the land resource chapter.

International Tropical Timber Agreement and The International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), 1983, 1994

The ITTO established by the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA), 1983, came into force in 1985 and became operational in 1987 [3]. The ITTO facilitates discussion, consultation and international cooperation
on issues relating to the international trade and utilization of tropical timber and
the sustainable management of its resource base. The successor agreement to the ITTA (1983) was negotiated in 1994, and came into force on 1 January 1997. The organization has 57 member countries. India ratified the ITTA in 1996.

An assessment of the legal and regulatory framework for environmental protection in India

The extent of the environmental legislation network is evident from the above discussion but the enforcement of the laws has been a matter of concern. One commonly cited reason is the prevailing command and control nature of the environmental regime. Coupled with this is the prevalence of the all-or�nothing approach of the law; they do not consider the extent of violation. Fines are levied on a flat basis and in addition, there are no incentives to lower the discharges below prescribed levels.

Some initiatives have addressed these issues in the recent past. The Government of India came out with a Policy Statement for Abatement of Pollution in 1992, before the Rio conference, which declared that market-based approaches would be considered in controlling pollution. It stated that economic instruments will be investigated to encourage the shift from curative to preventive measures, internalise the costs of pollution and conserve resources, particularly water. In 1995, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) constituted a task force to evaluate market-based instruments, which strongly advocated their use for the abatement of industrial pollution. Various economic incentives have been used to supplement the command-and-control policies. Depreciation allowances, exemptions from excise or customs duty payment, and arrangement of soft loans for the adoption of clean technologies are instances of such incentives. Another aspect that is evident is the shift in the focus from end-of-pipe treatment of pollution to treatment at source. The role of remote sensing and geographical information systems in natural resource management and environmental protection has also gained importance over time

http://moef.nic.in/divisi...2/ch2.html

Genesia said:

uniden said:

i have a close relative that has worked at walmart for years, they get paid pretty well for what they do, and have good medical coverage. and they started in the shoe dept. & worked their way up to management. people love to pick on walmart, but many of the other retail companies are actually much worse than walmart when it comes to medical and full-time employment. if you haven't worked for the company then you're just going off of a lot of lies that you read online that are put out there by the unions.

Well said!

Co-sign