to whom does water belong? Coca-Cola in Kerala to 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-COLA Adivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST COCA-COLA Adivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant The plant is accused of:

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST COCA-COLA Adivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant The plant is accused of: Using more bore wells than permitted in their license:

2002: BEGINNING OF PROTEST AGAINST COCA-COLA Adivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant The 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-COLA Adivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant The 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-COLA Adivasi (tribal people, outside of the case system) start sit-in in front of Plachimada bottling plant The 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

Adivasi & other locals sit-in infront of bottling plant

Adivasi & other locals sit-in infront of bottling plant Investigations into state of water = media attention

Indian activists become involved Adivasi & other locals sit-in infront of bottling plant Indian activists become involved Investigations into state of water = media attention

Indian activists become involved Adivasi & other locals sit-in infront of bottling plant Indian activists become involved World Water conference held: participation of all Indian political parties, and international activists Investigations into state of water = media attention

INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION; PRESSURE ON COCA-COLA Adivasi & other locals sit-in infront of bottling plant Indian activists become involved World Water conference held: participation of all Indian political parties, and international activists INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION; PRESSURE ON COCA-COLA Investigations into state of water = media attention

INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION; PRESSURE ON COCA-COLA Adivasi & other locals sit-in infront of bottling plant Indian activists become involved World Water conference held: participation of all Indian political parties, and international activists INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION; PRESSURE ON COCA-COLA Investigations into state of water = media attention Protest spreads to other Coca-Cola plants in India

Plachimada and other water protests Accusation of high pesticide content in drinks TERI investigation into Coca-Cola Operation in India

Plachimada and other water protests Accusation of high pesticide content in drinks TERI investigation into Coca-Cola Operation in India Independent investigation carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (Indian NGO) finds:

No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products Plachimada and other water protests Accusation of high pesticide content in drinks TERI investigation into Coca-Cola Operation in India Independent investigation carried out by The Energy and Resources Institute (Indian NGO) finds: No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products

No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products Plachimada and other water protests Accusation of high pesticide content in drinks TERI investigation into Coca-Cola Operation in India 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.

No pesticides in Coca-Cola Products Plachimada and other water protests Accusation of high pesticide content in drinks TERI investigation into Coca-Cola Operation in India 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 decision This 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 decision This 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 decision This 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 decision This 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 decision This 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 Criticisms:

April 2005: reversal of initial decision This 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 Criticisms: Report does not address water quality (i.e. pollution)

April 2005: reversal of initial decision This 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 Criticisms: 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 decision This 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 Criticisms: 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 Coca-Cola brings money into area with low economic growth Coca-Cola brings employment ECONOMICS OF PLACHIMADA’S WATER

ECONOMICS OF PLACHIMADA’S WATER Coca-Cola brings money into area with low economic growth Drop in crop yields around plant; local must further afield for work as labourers Coca-Cola brings employment Polluted water; lowered standard of living Kerala State subsidies to Coca-Cola 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?