Coca-Cola in Keralato whom does water belong?

Photo ‘Spilt Happiness’ by Peter Davis, some rights reserved http://flickr.com/photos/pediddle/327754596/

INTRODUCTION

• 2000 The Coca-Cola Company open a bottling plant in

Plachimada, Kerala

INTRODUCTION

• 2000 The Coca-Cola Company open a bottling plant in

Plachimada, Kerala

They were invited in by the state government as part of a regional industrialization program, and receive subsidies

Plachimada, Kerala State

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST

COCA-COLAAdivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST

COCA-COLAAdivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plantThe plant is accused of:

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST

COCA-COLAAdivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plantThe plant is accused of:

• Using more bore wells than permitted in their license:

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST

COCA-COLAAdivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plantThe plant is accused of:

• Using more bore wells than permitted in their license: the level of groundwater is said to have dropped from 45 to 100m below the surface

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST

COCA-COLAAdivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plantThe plant is accused of:

• Using more bore wells than permitted in their license: the level of groundwater is said to have dropped from 45 to 100m below the surface

• Discharging polluted waste back into the water supply

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST

COCA-COLAAdivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plantThe plant is accused of:

• Using more bore wells than permitted in their license: the level of groundwater is said to have dropped from 45 to 100m below the surface

• Discharging polluted waste back into the water supply

• The result for local people was bad smelling and tasting water, rashes and stomach aches

2003: Investigations of water supply

• District medical officer declares water unfit for consumption:

2003: Investigations of water supply

• District medical officer declares water unfit for consumption: local water supplies have high concentration of salts, from rapid depletion of supplies

2003: Investigations of water supply

• District medical officer declares water unfit for consumption: local water supplies have high concentration of salts, from rapid depletion of supplies

• BBC investigation shows that ‘biosolids’ distributed as fertilizer contain dangerous levels of cadmium and lead

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate• May 2003: the Kerala State government over-rules the decision of the

Panchayat not to renew the Coca-Cola license

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate• May 2003: the Kerala State government over-rules the decision of the

Panchayat not to renew the Coca-Cola license • December 2003: Kerala High Court rules in favour of the Panchayat, with the

reasoning that the State has to protect the supply of water for the local people

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate• May 2003: the Kerala State government over-rules the decision of the

Panchayat not to renew the Coca-Cola license • December 2003: Kerala High Court rules in favour of the Panchayat, with the

reasoning that the State has to protect the supply of water for the local people • April 2005: appeal by Coca-Cola results permission to draw 500,000 litres of

water a day. Panchayat ordered to renew license

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate• May 2003: the Kerala State government over-rules the decision of the

Panchayat not to renew the Coca-Cola license • December 2003: Kerala High Court rules in favour of the Panchayat, with the

reasoning that the State has to protect the supply of water for the local people • April 2005: appeal by Coca-Cola results permission to draw 500,000 litres of

water a day. Panchayat ordered to renew license• June 2005: Panchayat refuse to renew license; Coca-Cola appeal to High Court.

Panchayat renew the license for 3 months

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate• May 2003: the Kerala State government over-rules the decision of the

Panchayat not to renew the Coca-Cola license • December 2003: Kerala High Court rules in favour of the Panchayat, with the

reasoning that the State has to protect the supply of water for the local people • April 2005: appeal by Coca-Cola results permission to draw 500,000 litres of

water a day. Panchayat ordered to renew license• June 2005: Panchayat refuse to renew license; Coca-Cola appeal to High Court.

Panchayat renew the license for 3 months • November 2005: Coca-Cola once again approach the Kerala High Court

resulting in court order to Panchayat to renew license

2003- 2006: Legal battle• April 2003: Local Panchayat (democratically elected local government) cancel

Coca-Cola license to operate• May 2003: the Kerala State government over-rules the decision of the

Panchayat not to renew the Coca-Cola license • December 2003: Kerala High Court rules in favour of the Panchayat, with the

reasoning that the State has to protect the supply of water for the local people • April 2005: appeal by Coca-Cola results permission to draw 500,000 litres of

water a day. Panchayat ordered to renew license• June 2005: Panchayat refuse to renew license; Coca-Cola appeal to High Court.

Panchayat renew the license for 3 months • November 2005: Coca-Cola once again approach the Kerala High Court

resulting in court order to Panchayat to renew license • January 2006: Panchayat renews license, imposing 13 conditions, the most

notable of which is that the bottling plant does not use the local groundwater

2003- 2006: Legal battle

• To date the Supreme Court has not passed judgment on the appeals lodged at each stage of the legal proceedings

2003- 2006: Legal battle

• To date the Supreme Court has not passed judgment on the appeals lodged at each stage of the legal proceedings

• The Plachimada bottling plant has been closed since 2004, despite Coca-Cola declaring victory in the court battle

TRAJECTORY OF PLACHIMADA PROTEST

Investigations into state of water = media attention

Investigations into state of water = media attention

Investigations into state of water = media attention

Investigations into state of water = media attention

INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION; PRESSURE ON COCA-COLA

Investigations into state of water = media attention

INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION; PRESSURE ON COCA-COLA

Independent investigation carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (Indian NGO) finds:

Independent investigation carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (Indian NGO) finds:• No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products

Independent investigation carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (Indian NGO) finds:• No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products• Over use of water resources in some areas.

Independent investigation carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (Indian NGO) finds:• No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products• Over use of water resources in some areas.• Recommends closure of plant in Rajasthan

Ownership of water: Initial Court Ruling

In December 2003 single judge bench rules uphold right of panchayat to force closure of bottling plant

Ownership of water: Initial Court Ruling

In December 2003 single judge bench rules uphold right of panchayat to force closure of bottling plant

The reasoning of the judgment is based on:

Ownership of water: Initial Court Ruling

In December 2003 single judge bench rules uphold right of panchayat to force closure of bottling plant

The reasoning of the judgment is based on:• Public Trust Doctrine: it is the responsibility of

the state to safeguard certain resources for the people

Ownership of water: Initial Court Ruling

In December 2003 single judge bench rules uphold right of panchayat to force closure of bottling plant

The reasoning of the judgment is based on:• Public Trust Doctrine: it is the responsibility of

the state to safeguard certain resources for the people

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: the right to life

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:• Coca-Cola are a legal person, therefore have right to draw water

from their land

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:• Coca-Cola are a legal person, therefore have right to draw water

from their land• Panchayat not qualified or informed enough to make proper

decision

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:• Coca-Cola are a legal person, therefore have right to draw water

from their land• Panchayat not qualified or informed enough to make proper

decisionCriticisms:

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:• Coca-Cola are a legal person, therefore have right to draw water

from their land• Panchayat not qualified or informed enough to make proper

decisionCriticisms:• Report does not address water quality (i.e. pollution)

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:• Coca-Cola are a legal person, therefore have right to draw water

from their land• Panchayat not qualified or informed enough to make proper

decisionCriticisms:• Report does not address water quality (i.e. pollution)• Paid for by Coca-Cola and drafted by representative on committee

April 2005: reversal of initial decisionThis judgment, entirely based on investigation of groundwater in the

area by a court appointed committee, is that Coca-Cola can draw 500,000 litres of water a day

Reasoning is:• Coca-Cola are a legal person, therefore have right to draw water

from their land• Panchayat not qualified or informed enough to make proper

decisionCriticisms:• Report does not address water quality (i.e. pollution)• Paid for by Coca-Cola and drafted by representative on committee• Possible inaccurate estimation of rainfall trends and water usage

ECONOMICS OF

PLACHIMADA’S WATER

ECONOMICS OF

PLACHIMADA’S WATER

ECONOMICS OF

PLACHIMADA’S WATER

Who governs water?

Indian courts tend to protect economic rights of population e.g.

Who governs water?

Indian courts tend to protect economic rights of population e.g.

• Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Council (1985) 2 Supp SCR 51

Who governs water?

Indian courts tend to protect economic rights of population e.g.

• Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Council (1985) 2 Supp SCR 51

• M. C. Mehta versus Union of India 2004(12) SCC118

Who governs water?

Indian courts tend to protect economic rights of population e.g.

• Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Council (1985) 2 Supp SCR 51

• M. C. Mehta versus Union of India 2004(12) SCC118 Millions in India still get their water from rivers, wells, and

communal pumps therefore privatization of water would have dramatic effects on access to water.

Who governs water?Indian courts tend to protect economic rights of population

e.g.• Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Council (1985) 2

Supp SCR 51 • M. C. Mehta versus Union of India 2004(12) SCC118 Millions in India still get their water from rivers, wells, and

communal pumps therefore privatization of water would have dramatic effects on access to water.

BUT does final court ruling in Plachimada show that economic interests trump local concerns?