Plachimada betrayed

The Centre and the State government of Kerala seem to be turning their backs on the people of Plachimada as the President denies assent to a Bill that aimed at setting up a tribunal to hear the compensation claims of victims of the local Coca-Cola plant. By R. KRISHNAKUMAR

THE struggle of the people of Plachimada against corporate greed and the denial of their right to water and other basic needs and livelihood has once again reached a dead end, with the President of India denying sanction for a Bill passed unanimously by the Kerala Assembly in 2011 with a view to helping those affected by Coca-Cola’s controversial bottling unit there.

The Bill was meant for establishment of a special tribunal for speedy adjudication of disputes and recovery of compensation for the predominantly poor, landless victims of Coca- Cola’s activities at Plachimada, a village in Perumatty panchayat in Kerala’s Palakkad district.

The district lies in the rain shadow region of the Western Ghats. A majority of the people there have been traditionally engaged in agriculture, relying heavily on irrigation and groundwater for irrigation needs. This is especially true of Plachimada, which has a sizeable number of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe families depending on agriculture. Coca-Cola built its controversial plant here in 2000.

The Home Ministry’s communication to the State Governor’s office in mid-January did not explain why the Bill was being returned. It merely said that “the President is pleased to withhold assent to ‘the Plachimada Coca Cola Victims Compensation Claims Tribunal Bill 2011’ on 20-11-2015”.

For over four years after the Bill was passed by the State Assembly and sent for presidential assent, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and then the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre kept it in abeyance. Five Union Ministries reportedly approved the proposed law. Still, in December 2014, the Union Home Ministry asked the State government to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) instead of continuing to seek the President’s assent for the Bill.

The Ministry’s position was that the Bill violated the powers of the NGT, which was established under an Act of Parliament in 2010 with the necessary expertise to handle disputes relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources and for giving relief and compensation for damages in such cases. The argument was that the State did not have the legislative competence to constitute a separate tribunal to deal with issues that came under the NGT’s jurisdiction. This is now widely alleged to be a pretext for serving the interests of the Coca-Cola company and is reportedly based on the legal opinion provided by the company.

The Bill could have set a precedent in paying compensation to victims for the damage caused by corporate over-exploitation of natural resources. It was proposed by the Left Democratic Front (LDF)government in Kerala towards the fag end of its term. It was, however, passed without any discussion on the last day of the 12th session of the Assembly, a day when LDF MLAs and members of the opposition Congress-led United Democratic Front coalition were otherwise busy levelling allegations of corruption against one another.

Significantly, there were concerns even within the LDF government at the time about the impact of such a tribunal on the industrial climate in the State, especially on future industrial investments, employment opportunities and pollution-related concerns surrounding public sector industrial units. However, the strong public opinion in the State forced the government to act on the recommendations of a high-power committee set up in May 2009, mainly to assess the extent of damage caused by the Coca-Cola plant at Plachimada.

The committee, headed by an Additional Chief Secretary and comprising experts from various fields, said in a detailed report that “the body of irrefutable evidence available” made the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd “liable for ecological degradation, groundwater pollution, drinking-water contamination, soil despoliation, consequential health damages, decline in agricultural income and loss of livelihood”. It also said that the company was liable to pay compensation for the heavy damage it had caused to the natural resources in the area, which had created a host of social, economic, health and ecological problems cutting across sectors. It said the overall money value of the damage would be around Rs.216.26 crore, though the actual compensation would have to be calculated by a legally constituted dedicated authority (“Plachimada’s claims”, Frontline, July 30, 2010).

N.K. Premachandran, who was then the State Minister for Water Resources, piloted the Bill in the Assembly. He told Frontline then that the Bill was being sent for the President’s assent because it involved the issue of pollution, a Central subject. However, he added, the State was well within its rights to formulate laws on issues such as public health, sanitation, agriculture, animal husbandry, water and land—issues for which, according to the committee, the Coca-Cola unit’s activities had implications.

He also pointed out that the NGT allowed victims to file petitions for compensation within a period of just five years from the causative event. The Coca-Cola unit was established in 2000, and the villagers had been suffering for over a decade when the Bill was moved. This was why a special tribunal was required to make the polluter pay. The victims, said the Minister, had no scope for seeking compensation under the NGT Act (See interview, Frontline, March 25, 2011).

The local people who experienced the ill effects of the plant had in fact launched an agitation within a year of the unit being established. As the agitation grew in strength and drew international attention, the Perumatty panchayat passed a resolution in April 2003 refusing to renew the licence given to the company. It was the beginning of a legal battle (“Plachimada’s loss”, Frontline, May 4, 2005) which is still pending before the Supreme Court.

In February 2004, the unit was shut down on the basis of an order of the State Pollution Control Board. So the growing water depletion, pollution, toxic contamination and other damage caused by the plant occurred between the years 2000 and 2004 (“Kerala’s plight”, March 26, 2004). That left the claims of the victims beyond the scope of the NGT Act.

The initial political reactions to the President’s denial of assent amount to a whimper. It is also unclear what the State government intends to do, if at all it intends to do something about it. Several organisations have said that the victims have been betrayed by both the Central and State governments. They have announced plans for agitations. Vilayodi Venugopal, chairman of the Plachimada Anti-Coca-Cola Agitation Committee, told Frontline that the decision, which came five years after the Bill was sent for assent, was disappointing.

“The Coca-Cola company has been consistently trying to influence the authorities and scuttle the legal process. Five Union Ministries had approved the proposed Bill and the State government and several organisations have answered all the questions that were repeatedly raised on the need for a tribunal. But the Union Home Ministry had been adamantly supporting the cause of the multinational company throughout. We are organising protests in the coming days against the Home Ministry’s role in the President returning the Bill without an explanation,” he said.

M.N. Giri, chairman of the Mayilamma Foundation (named after Mayilamma, the best-known face of the anti-Coca-Cola struggle’s early phase), said that the Central and State governments were equally responsible for effects of the Coca-Cola plant on the people of Plachimada. “If the two governments are letting the company off the hook now, they are duty-bound to pay compensation to the victims. The victims include a large number of tribal families who need to be rehabilitated elsewhere. The foundation is organising a protest before Parliament on March 10 raising these demands,” he said.

However, despite these voices of protest, the struggle that had caught international attention not long ago (“Resistance in Kerala”, Frontline, February 13, 2004) and became part of a global movement against transnational corporations trying to usurp scarce natural resources seemed to get very little support from mainstream political parties when it came to the crucial issue of making the polluter pay. What is evident, instead, is a dubious attempt to serve the interests of a global corporation and bury the legitimate claims for compensation of the victims in a pit of technicalities.

Source

A lost battle: Plachimada’s victims may never get Coke’s compensation

KOCHI, FEBRUARY 7:  

Bringing relief to Coca Cola and turning to nought the long agitation by residents of the Plachimada, a village in Kerala’s Palakkad district, the Plachimada Tribunal Bill has failed to win the President’s assent.

The Rashtrapati Bhavan on February 1 returned the Plachimada Coca Cola Victims Relief and Compensation Claims Special Tribunal Bill 2011 – which was unanimously passed by the Kerala Assembly five years ago – to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

“President is pleased to withhold assent,” the note from his office said. No reason was given for declining assent.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages, the Indian subsidiary of the multinational, has thus been spared of paying compensation to the nearly 1,000 Dalit and Adivasi families from Palakkad’s Perumatty and Pattancherry gram panchayats, the victims of the hazardous effects of its huge bottling plant at Plachimada.

A high-powered committee appointed by the Kerala government had determined in 2010 that residents in the vicinity of the Coca Cola plant had suffered damage valued at a minimum of ₹216 crore. The plant – which drew water from the nearby villages and dirtied wells, ponds and other water bodies – was shut down in late 2005 after a long agitation by the people of Plachimada that also drew global attention.

The committee had recommended setting up, through legislation, a tribunal to recover damages from Coca Cola and to administer the compensation to the victims. Had the Bill received Presidential assent, it would have made the tribunal a statutory reality.

Home Ministry opposition

“It was the Home Ministry’s steadfast hostility to the Bill that has finally caused its rejection by the President,” S Faizi, who was the environmental expert in the high-powered committee, toldBusinessLine. “At one time, the ministry had the audacity to ask the State government to withdraw the Bill”. He alleged that a section of bureaucrats and politicians had consistently tried to subvert the legislation in order to protect Coca Cola’s interests.

Sucking up groundwater

The bottling plant, set up in 34 acres of land surrounded by paddy fields, had licences produce 5.61 lakh litres of soft drinks and other beverages daily. This meant drawing around 20 lakh litres of groundwater from six bore wells and two ponds. Soon, most local wells in the predominantly agricultural village went dry and the available water sources got contaminated.

Following protracted protest and the denial of new licences by government agencies, the plant was forced to shut down in late 2005.

Compensation, however, was still a long way off. It was VS Achuthanandan’s Left Democratic Front (LDF) government that set up the high-powered committee and also got the Bill passed. But ever since, it had been gathering dust at the Union Home Ministry. Activists now say Plachimada’s people might never receive the compensation.

(This article was published on February 7, 2016)

Source

Bombay High Court orders for supply of water to persons living in illegal slums in Mumbai. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/get-a-policy-to-supply-water-to-illegal-slums-its-their-right-hc-tells-bmc/#sthash.JgI05QO7.dpuf

Stating that right to water is an integral part of right to life of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court (HC) on Monday directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to come up with a policy to provide water to the illegally erected slums in Mumbai, which came up on or before January 1, 2000. Justices A S Oka and A S Gadkari, however, observed that providing water to illegal hutments does not regularise them. “It is observed that water supply to illegal structures does not affect its illegality,” said the HC. It also clarified under Article 21, right to shelter does not extend to illegal occupants. Pani Haq Samiti, a group comprising activists, organisations, institutions and slumdwellers, had filed a PIL in 2011 demanding the right to water for all residents in Mumbai, irrespective of slum cut-off dates. “The BMC will have to evolve a policy for supplying water to persons living in illegal hutments which came up before January 1, 2000. Water may be supplied through different methods than how it is supplied to authorised households. We make it clear that while making provisions for supply of water, payment of water charges may be higher than the rate at which it is provided to legal households by BMC,’’ said the judges. According to the HC, while BMC may not provide water supply through water pipes, it could look at the suggestion of providing water through pre-paid cards. The BMC has been asked to come up with a policy for water supply by the end of February 2015.  Further, the HC has directed BMC to take action against illegal structures in Mumbai. “We order the BMC that it will be under obligation to prevent illegal construction and carry out demolition action against structures that came up after January 1, 2000.’’ The Court further said that a person living in an illegal slum cannot claim the same rights as a law abiding citizen. “A citizen who stays in an illegal slum or structure cannot claim this right to get water supply at par with law abiding citizens who have constructed and occupied authorised structures,” said the Court. Pointing to the failure of all concerned authorities to prevent such illegal structures from coming up and failure of taking action against them, the HC further said, “At two stages, the state government came out with a regularisation policy for such hutments till a certain date. Such decisions, perhaps, may be the reason why they occupy such hutments, in the hope that the government will get a third policy decision.” The BMC has been asked to file a compliance affidavit by March 2, 2015. “If there is any prohibition to supplying water in any particular area, the policy will not apply to such areas,’’ said the court. The BMC had earlier stated that it was providing water to buildings without occupation certificates on humanitarian grounds. The court also pointed out that several government employees such as police constables, inspectors employees of public sector undertakings living in the slums. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/get-a-policy-to-supply-water-to-illegal-slums-its-their-right-hc-tells-bmc/#sthash.JgI05QO7.dpuf

Setback to Coke in TN: Community vigilance is the only defence against ecological damage

http://www.firstpost.com/business/setback-coke-tn-community-vigilance-defence-ecological-damage-2209254.html

The setback to Coca Cola in Tamil Nadu, in which the state government cancelled the allotment of land to the company at an industrial complex at Perundurai in Erode district because of local opposition, is yet another example of community vigilance protecting precious natural resources.

The company was set to establish a Rs 500-crore bottling plant with water from Cauvery river. However, local residents under the umbrella of Tamil Nadu Environmental Safety Movement went up in arms against the project for more than a year. What’s noteworthy is that the ruling AIADMK hadn’t joined a hartal in Perundurai in February organised by political parties, but the government finally gave in to local concerns.

This is the second time the multinational soft drinks giant is biting in the dust in Tamil Nadu. Earlier, the company had to give up its plan for a similar plant in Sivaganga following stiff opposition from the local community. The proposed plant would have extracted massive amounts of ground water (about 75,000 litres a day, according to media reports) in a doubt-prone area.

Reuters

The community agitations, both in Sivaganga in 2003 and now in Perundurai, drew a lot of inspiration from the epic battle by the local residents against an operational Coca Cola plant in Plachimada in Kerala. The plant, which became operational in 2000 reportedly drew about half a million litres of ground water every day and rendered the area water-less. Over the next few years, the community and the company fought a legal battle which is now pending in the Supreme Court.

The plant however remains closed since 2004. The Left government that came to power in 2006 lent its support to the community in its legal battle. The then health minister had said that “the Government will stand by the people in whichever court the company goes. The right over water and air is the right to live. The Government will not allow stopping of these two lifelines of the people.” At one stage, the manufacture and production of Coca Cola was even banned in the state because of safety concerns.

In 2011, a day before its term ended, the Left government even passed a landmark bill to secure compensation for the ecological damage allegedly caused by Coca Cola. Earlier, an expert committee had pegged the damage at Rs 216 crore. In January 2015, the union home ministry asked the state government to withdraw the bill as it conflicted with the provisions of the National Green Tribunal. The story is not over yet.

The Plachimada battle is now a legend in community-led agitations and is also a best practice in international development studies and civil society responses. It was a bitter experience for the company as the plant was already operational and the controversy had generated a lot of bad publicity. The company tried to take on the community, and the then state government, through public relations campaigns, but miserably failed.

It’s amusing that despite the Plachimada fiasco, Coca Cola went ahead with its plans in nearby Tamil Nadu and failed twice. However, what was redeeming was the community vigilance and the quick response by the state government. In its cancellation of the land allotted to Coca Cola in Perundurai, the government didn’t attribute it to any environmental reasons, but the delay by the company.

Coca Cola had faced similar community-led agitations against its water exploitation in other parts of the country too. In Kaladera, in Rajasthan, where the company had a plant, groundwater level had been affected and the villagers had protested for years.

Similar protests were also reported from Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh.

Although Coca Cola gets a lot of bad publicity because of these agitations, exploitation of water, particularly in drought-prone areas, and ecological imbalance are the collateral damage that people have to pay for ill-conceived industrial development. Not just soft drinks companies, sugar mills, power plants, packaged water companies and various small and medium industries also exploit and pollute the sparse water resources. Unfortunately, in most parts of India, the communities are alone in their battle because the governments side with the Big Business in the name of investments and development. What’s lacking is clear water policies by the state governments and social audits of such ecologically damaging projects prior to granting permissions.

Coca Cola has faced several such community-led agitations in India and elsewhere in the world, but that does’t stop it from setting up new plants and extracting water in drought-prone areas. The only defence for the communities is the awareness of the perils of such lopsided development and a habitual mistrust of their governments. The tool that has worked for them so far is their vigilance and resilience. The Perundurai experience is yet another example.

The Coca-Cola Incident – Are we the next Plachimada?

Image courtesy Killer Coke

On August 17th 2015, the Coca Cola factory in Sri Lanka leaked diesel fuel into the Kelani River, polluting the water supply for millions of Sri Lankans living in suburban Colombo.  The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational company that is a global leader in the beverage industry.  Although the company is a universally recognized, iconic institution, over the past few years, it has been involved in a number of unconscionable environmental issues, particularly in relation to its unsustainable water use practices. Several of these issues have impacted the environment in severe ways and thereby adversely affected the lives and livelihoods of millions of people who call the areas in which Coca-Cola chooses to manufacture its products, home.

Currently, Sri Lanka is asking for an apology and attempting to fine the company; however, most seem unaware of the adverse impacts that Coca-Cola could potentially cause, and in fact, have already caused in several other communities. One such community is Plachimada, a small fishing and agricultural village in the Palakkad district of Kerala, India. In 1999, the Government of Kerala invited a subsidiary of the Coca Cola company in India to establish a plant in Plachimada. Within two years, the residents of Plachimada began to feel the impacts of the factory, which included severe water shortages and water pollution. The story of what happened there is similar to what is happening in Sri Lanka today.

Coca Cola left Plachimada with dangerously high levels of cancer-causing cadmium and lead in the soil, which led to crop failures and further contamination of its precious groundwater. In response, the people were forced to start a grass-roots movement to stop the company from further exploiting and contaminating the natural resources of the area. Finally, in August 2006, the Government of Kerala and the State Food Authority banned the manufacture and sale of Coca Cola in Kerala alleging that further investigation found pesticides and harmful chemicals in the products. Events like these have occurred in other areas in the country, such as Wada in Maharashtra and Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh, and several other communities have opposed proposed Coca Cola facilities for similar reasons. The events in Plachimada may prove to have been more severe than what happened recently in the Kelani River; however, more often than not problems that began with water contamination were only a precursor to further violations, especially when left unregulated. Often, additional issues and hazards were discovered only after the facility was systematically investigated.

The Sri Lankan Government should take Kerala as an example and in doing so make an example out of the Coca Cola Company by taking a timely and strong stance against it. After the Plachimada crisis, the Government of Kerala took steps to draft the Kerala Groundwater (Control and Regulation Act) in 2002, which has since helped the community to protect and redevelop their groundwater resources. The Sri Lankan government should do everything in its power to protect its natural resources and its citizens.  Currently the government is being pressured to reduce the fine that was imposed on the company and to settle the case in a manner favorable for Coca Cola. However, it is very important that we stand our ground to prevent Sri Lankans from suffering like the residents of Plachimada. It is also necessary that Coca Cola take responsibility for its mistake, especially since the company frequently attempts to project a image of environmental support, and has “green-washed” its products—even using the poster child of climate change as a façade. This is why the government should fine Coca Cola a well-deserved and significant fine to deter similar irresponsible behavior in the future and set up environmental policy regulations to prevent companies from taking advantage of and polluting our country’s resources.

It is equally important that the Government of Sri Lanka should inform the public of the facts of the incident and demonstrate their interest in protecting the citizens of this country.  Residents of Colombo and suburbs are not fully aware of the health implications of this incident.

Coca Cola should cover the full reparatory cost of cleaning the water supply in addition to a penalizing fine and permit environmental authorities to test their systems periodically.  If Coca Cola does not comply, it would be worth considering the option of banning the manufacturing of Coca Cola in Sri Lanka to prevent our country from suffering from the same damages as Kerala.

An apology hardly suffices because let’s face it – The Coca Cola Company might think that “Coke adds Life” (1976), but we know better!

Ariesha Wikramanayake is a final year undergraduate student at University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. She is double majoring in Biology and Ecosystems Science and Policy.

###

References:

Chacko, Robin. “The Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd – The Plachimada Fiasco.” Jananeethi. (2005): 7-32. Print.

Government of Kerala. Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. State Profile of Kerala 2010-2011. Thrissur: MSME- Development Institute, 2011. Web.

Mathews, Rohan. “The Plachimada Struggle against Coca Cola in Southern India.” DPH. Intercultural Resources.

Operandi, Modus. “Water: the Coca Cola Company in Kerala.” Openrim.org. (2007): Web.

“Case against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India.” Righttowater. The Rights to Water and Sanitation. Web.

“Coke’s Crimes in India.” Coke’s Crimes. Killercoke.org. Web.

Koonan, Sujith. “Legal Implications of Plachimada.”International Environmental Law Research Centre. (2007): 1-17. Print.

“Coca-Cola: News & Events.” Coca-Cola Enterprises . The Coca-Cola Company.

Other References Not Cited:

“Indians force Coca-Cola bottling facility in Plachimada to shut down, 2001-2006.” Global Nonviolent Action Database. Swarthmore College.

Surendranath, C. “Coca-Cola: Continuing Battle in Kerala”. India Resource Center, 10 Jul 2003. Web.

Majumder, Sanjoy. “Indian state bans Pepsi and Coke.”British Broadcasting Corporation [New Delhi] 9 August 2006.

http://puvath.lk/news.php?newsid=105516&hl=en

A dubious alliance

TERI’s partnership with Coca-Cola, whose business practices in India and abroad have been called into question more than once, raises questions of ethics. By DIVYA TRIVEDI

IN an irony of sorts, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) University has tied up with the global beverage company Coca-Cola to fund a Coca-Cola Department of Regional Water Studies at the institution.

TERI was set up in 1974 as the Tata Energy and Resources Institute by Darbari S. Seth, referred to as the builder of Tata Chemicals, who was at some point the chairman of 14 Tata companies, including Tata Tea, Consolidated Coffee, Excel Industries, and Rallis India Ltd. Considered a key strategist for several of these companies, he set up TERI as a not-for-profit independent research institute that would contribute to scientific and policy research in the fields of energy, environment and sustainable development. He was clear that financial autonomy was a prerequisite for TERI to retain its intellectual autonomy. TERI University was launched in 1998 to offer courses in sustainable development and to “disseminate” the knowledge created by TERI. Rajendra K. Pachauri, who joined TERI in 1981 as its director and went on to head it as its director general, became the university’s chancellor. It enjoys the status of a “deemed” university as certified by the University Grants Commission.

Coca-Cola’s business practices in India and abroad have been called into question more than once. It is not surprising, then, that eyebrows are being raised at this alliance between the multinational and TERI University, which came about in May last year. In a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Water Resources Minister Uma Bharati, Pachauri and Leena Srivastava, university vice-chancellor, in October last year, the Alliance Against Conflict of Interest (AACI) wrote: “Coca-Cola is internationally known to be a polluter of waterbodies, for depleting water resources, for human rights violations, for violations of workers’ rights, for targeting children and schools with their aggressive marketing campaigns and for bribery of the American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry to soften their stand against children consuming sugary drinks which contribute to increase in non-communicable diseases like hypertension, diabetes and cancers, which require lifelong costly treatment.”

The AACI, a group of organisations and individuals—doctors, lawyers, women and child health groups, environmentalists, researchers, activists and mediapersons—has strongly condemned the partnership and urged the Ministry of Water Resources and TERI to disassociate themselves from Coca-Cola.

The situation becomes more ironical when one sees the chequered history that the two have shared. In 2001, TERI included Coca-Cola on its list of the most responsible companies in India. Krista Bywater (an assistant professor of sociology at Muhlenberg College, Pennsylvania, U.S.) in her essay in the book Global Management, Local Resistances: Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Case Studies edited by Ulrike Schuerkens said: “Coca-Cola has sponsored events with TERI, including its annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit and its 2003 Earth Day event.... With such close ties to Coca-Cola, TERI’s reputation could be harmed if it publicised that the company it presents as a paragon of sustainable practices is in fact destroying the environment and people’s livelihoods.”

In 2003, when college campuses across the United States were boycotting Coca-Cola over the alleged maltreatment of its workers in bottling plants in Colombia and environmental concerns in India, Michigan University joined the boycott. It called for an independent investigation into the allegations levelled against Coca-Cola in these two countries. In the face of such uproar from the youth, its core customer base, Coca-Cola was forced to announce a third-party assessment. In India, it appointed TERI as the investigating agency despite its past association with it.

TERI undertook the assessment in 2004. It admitted in its report that Coca-Cola was responsible for over-extraction of water and had caused water shortages in areas around its plant sites. It was even mildly critical of Coca-Cola’s activities and recommended shutting down of its bottling plant in Kaladera, a drought-stricken region in Rajasthan. “What emerges, however, is that the plant’s operations in this area would continue to be one of the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of stress to the communities around,” stated the report. Even though TERI limited the scope of the study by studying only a few facilities and did not test the product for pesticides, it could not avoid outlining how the company was passing risks on to local communities in its quest for growth.

The report pointed out that while in Mehdiganj, in Uttar Pradesh near Varanasi, the aquifer might move from a safe to a semi-critical situation owing to continued water depletion, in Nabipur, Guajrat, the state of the aquifer had already moved from a critical to an overexploited condition.

“In both the areas, water-intensive crops such as rice are predominantly cultivated for a major part of the year and riparian rights need to be respected,” the report stated. In 2013, the Central Ground Water Authority backed this finding by stating that from 1999 to 2009, the quantity of groundwater in Mehdiganj had gone from safe to critical. In 2014, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board ordered a shutdown of the unit as it found the company to be violating a number of conditions of its licence.

In 2004, the Plachimada plant of the company in Kerala had come under scrutiny and was later ordered to be shut down for violating the Water (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, the Environment (Protection) Act, the Factories Act, the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Indian Penal Code, the Land Utilisation Order, the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act and the Indian Easement Act. A State government-appointed panel imposed a fine of $47 million on the company in 2010 and said: “The fact that Coca-Cola factory at Plachimada has caused immense damage to the environment and people and their livelihood and health is supported by impeccable evidence.”

In the light of such mounting evidence against the behemoth, TERI’s association with it has raised questions of ethics and damaged its credibility to a great extent. It also shows how corporates can use the concept of corporate social responsibility to offset the damage they might be doing to a locality and its community. This is not to say that all corporate-sponsored research is biased in favour of the corporate but the integrity of such research does become questionable by way of “guilt by association”.

Dr Arun Gupta, regional coordinator, International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN Asia), who is part of the AACI, told Frontline: “TERI can’t pretend ignorance. There is a quid pro quo unfolding.”

In the absence of a targeted law to arrest this quid pro quo, Dr Gupta, along with other members of the AACI, developed a draft Bill. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, a Congress member, introduced it in the Rajya Sabha in 2001 as a private members’ Bill, but it lapsed. According to the Bill, a conflict of interest may exist even if no unethical or improper act results from it and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the individual, his/her constituency or organisation. Both actual and perceived conflicts of interest can undermine the reputation and work of a public body/authority/project.

Conflicts of interest arise when politicians, public servants, consultants, technical/scientific experts, subject matter specialists or even academics have an actual or potential interest (usually financial) that may influence or appear to influence the conduct of their official duties or the quality of advice or recommendations rendered by them, explains Dr Gupta. The Bill mandates that “every public official, consultant, member or employee concerned with a public project” file a public disclosure statement. Contravention of, abetment to contravention of or attempts to contravene provisions of the Bill would be punishable with imprisonment up to three or five years or a fine of Rs.1 lakh or up to Rs.10 lakh or both. The Bill further recommends establishment of a conflict of interest commission to be headed by a chairperson and consisting of eight members, six of whom should be from civil society and two should be women to be appointed by the Central government.

According to Coca-Cola, it has invested more than $1.1 billion in the country since its re-entry in 1992. It operates around 23 bottling plants, some of which are located in economically underdeveloped areas of the country. It has always maintained publicly that its business practices are above board and that it engages in corporate social responsibility to offset the damage it may be causing on the ground. Its presidents and CEOs talk about “sustainability”, “water stewardship”, “energy management and climate protection”, “community development”, and so on but their words ring hollow in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

TERI has maintained that there is no conflict of interest in partnering with Coca-Cola. Currently, it is embroiled in the controversy over Pachauri, who went on leave in February from the post of director general of TERI following charges of sexual harassment from a junior woman employee. He also resigned from the post of Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

On its website, TERI states that it receives support from organisations such as Deutsche Bank, HSBC, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation and public sector undertakings such as NTPC Ltd, Steel Authority of India Ltd and NHPC Ltd.

http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/a-dubious-alliance/article7048691.ece

Arvind Kejriwal Delhi water windfall: How the numbers add up

One of the major decisions the Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government is likely to announce is supplying up to 700 litres of free water per day to each household which receives piped water supply.

But how was the figure of 700 litres arrived at? According to AAP spokesperson Atishi Marlena, the figure has been decided after looking at a World Health Organisation report which states that a person needs around 160 litres per day for “dignified living”. “The average family size in the country is around 4-5 persons. If you take this into account, a household needs 20 kilolitres of water per month,” she said.

While households consuming up to 20,000 litres of water per month will not be charged, those consuming more will pay for the entire quantity of water consumed. Moreover, the measure will be applicable to only those households who have a piped water connection or a metered connection.

As per the Delhi Statistical Report for 2014, the number of metered connection in the capital is around 16,02,099 in 2013-14, about 59,274 more than in 2012-13. Similarly, the number of unmetered connections has also seen an increase of 30,914 – from 4,38,791 in 2012-13 to 4,69,705 in 2013-14.

“In the course of five years, we plan to ensure that each household in the capital receives piped water supply,” Marlena said.

A party white paper on water said that out of 33.41 lakh households in Delhi, only about 20 per cent have piped water supply As a result, over 50 lakh people who do not receive piped water rely on other sources such as tankers and borewells, the party said.

Marlena said the measure will amount to a subsidy of Rs 65 crores for a quarter of the year. “The measure will benefit households which consumes up to 20 kilolitres of water per month. The second slab which includes households consuming from 20 to 40 kilolitres of water per month will have pay the whole amount of water consumed. The third slab of consumers — those using more than 40 kilolitres — will pay the bill at an increased rate. The cross-subsidy will take care of the finances around the scheme,” she said.

By Aditi Vatsa

Source: FT