Tag Archives: million

TTIP – Juncker’s 1.1 million signature ‘birthday card’ Updated for 2026





On 15th July the European Commission refused to accept a European Citizens Initiative (ECI) to end talks over the the TTIP and CETA, contentious trade and investment initiatives with the US and Canada.

The petition, organised by Stop TTIP, was signed by over a million citizens and passed all the Commission’s criteria for a valid ECI – except one.

The Commission didn’t like having ‘little people’ telling them what to do, specially on a project so dear to their hearts as stripping back social, environmental and health safeguards across Europe and letting US corporations rip.

So they made up a flimsy package of legal obfuscation to justify rejecting it, which they formally did on 11th September – claiming that an ECI may be formulated only positively, working towards the enactment of a legal act, not towards preventing an enactment.

Happy Birthday Mr Juncker!

But today – on Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s 60th birthday – Stop TTIP was back with a second million signature petition described as a ‘self-organised ECI’, handed to him by Stop TTIP representatives in Brussels.

John Hilary, a member of Stop TTIP’s Citizens’ Committee commented: “Stop TTIP has collected more than a million signatures in record time.

“This is especially embarrassing for the European Commission as it has tried repeatedly to block any citizens’ involvement in the way these treaties are being negotiated and what the outcome should be. Jean Claude Juncker should listen to the growing opposition and stop both treaties immediately.

“Politicians are always calling for citizens to get actively involved in European politics, and here are more than a million people who have done just that.

“On his 60th birthday, Juncker should blow out the candles on these massively unpopular and undemocratic trade deals that are opposed by people across Europe. One million signatures is just the beginning. We will continue our protest until TTIP and CETA are history.”

And don’t forget the lawsuit

In fact the required million signatures had all been collected by last Wednesday at 11.37pm – in a record time of less than two months. So by the time it was handed over today it had gathered a further 101,000 signatures!

In the process of mobilising all the signings Stop TTIP has grown into a fast-growing coalition of more than 320 civil society organisations, trade unions and consumer watchdogs from 24 EU Member States.

It has also launched a formal complaint to the European Court of Justice, pointing out that the European Citizens’ Initiative (regulation 211/2011) gives citizens the right “to participate by means of a European Citizens’ Initiative in the democratic life of the Union”.

“There is not a syllable which indicates that only constructive, i.e. positively formulated, ECIs are to be possible”, says Stop TTIP. “The instrument of an ECI is intended to enable lively participation at EU level by citizens – it is available to the citizens as a motive force or as a brake.”

The massive support for the campaign reflects the underlying agenda of TTIP and CETA, which is  would give unprecedented power to international corporations and thus threaten to overrule democracy, the rule of law as well as environmental and consumer protection.

In particular, the treaties would allow governments to be sued by corporations before private arbitration boards if their laws or policies damage the company’s profits.

We cannot let them get away with it!

With its decision on the ‘Stop TTIP’ ECI, the Commission is indicating how it envisions citizen participation at the European level: purely as an arrangement for applauding decisions which have already been made.

“In forward-looking questions, this means the following for its citizens: we have to stay outside”, says Stop TTIP. “We cannot just acquiesce to this. So the action before the European Court of Justice is about more than the registration of the Stop TTIP ECI.”

“The Commission is attempting to create a precedent in order to prevent further Citizens’ Initiatives relating to international contracts, and to give the EU institutions almost total negotiating freedom. That is a free ticket to the dismantling of democracy.”

 


Support TTIP with funds for its campaign and lawsuit.

 




387962

A whisker from victory! Oregon GMO vote goes to a recount Updated for 2026





Measure 92, Oregon’s food labeling initiative for GMO ingredients, will go to an automatic recount after the difference in vote between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes narrowed to just 809 with all votes counted.

The count has been been going on continuously since the 4th November election. Opponents were vocal in calling the vote in their favor just a day after the election, but as more votes came in from all 36 counties, the gap narrowed to 0.06% – well under the recount trigger level of 0.2%.

“Regardless of what the final outcome of this race is, this is a very encouraging sign for those of us who support labeling of genetically engineered foods“, said Sandeep Kaushik, a spokesman for the ‘Yes on Measure 92‘ campaign promoting the measure.

“We’ve known since election night that this race is too close to call. Instead of throwing in the towel when we trailed narrowly in the first vote counts, the ‘Yes on Measure 92’ campaign went to work. We activated our campaign staff and hundreds of volunteers over the last week to ensure that every possible valid vote is counted.

“Our efforts have led in recent days to thousands of Oregon voters correcting signature issues so that their valid ballots can be counted and their voices heard in this election.” 

Big food spent $20 million fighting Measure 92

The incredibly narrow race comes despite a $20 million campaign from the opposition led by big food and chemical companies. The previous record for spending on an Oregon ballot initiative was $12 million for both sides combined.

Monsanto donated nearly $5 million, DuPont Pioneer $4.5 million, Dow AgroSciences over a $1.1 million, with Pepsi and Coke, who use sugar and corn genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides in their products, combining for over $3.5 million.

On the other side the Yes campaign raised around $6 million, $1 million of which came from the Centre for Food Safety’s political arm, the CFS Action Fund, which also helped to mobilize thousands of volunteers in Oregon and across the country.

CFS previously worked with and provided legal and grassroots support to campaigns in Oregon to ban the planting of GE crops in two Oregon counties, and worked with the State Senate to ban GE canola in the Willamette Valley until 2019.

“Thanks to the tireless efforts of on the ground organizers, and despite an aggressive and expensive opposition campaign, GE food labeling is still alive in Oregon”, said CFS director Andrew Kimbrell. “The power and tenacity of the Food Movement has been on full display here in Oregon.”

A fourth state to require GMO labelling?

If the ‘yes’ votes are victorious on the recount, Oregon would be the fourth US state to require GE labeling.

Connecticut and Maine each passed GE labeling laws this past spring, but both bills include a trigger clause requiring several other states to also pass labeling bills before the new laws can be implemented. Vermont was the first state to pass a no-strings-attached labeling law, set to go into effect in 2016.

In Colorado, where a similar ballot initiative was also up for a vote, the anti-labeling side won the vote after spending over $16 million, hugely outspending the ‘Yes on 105 campaign’.

In all, companies funding anti-labeling campaigns have spent over $100 million in just four states – California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

In 2013, Rep. Peter DeFazio and Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 1699/S. 809) to make GE food labeling mandatory across the country.

Supported by 63 Representatives and 17 Senators, the bill directs the Food and Drug Administration to use its authority to enact a federal, mandatory GE labeling policy that would guarantee all Americans the right to know.

“We are optimistic that when the recount is complete Measure 92 will prevail”, said Kaushik. “But we want to be clear about one thing: regardless of the final outcome of the mandatory recount, the labeling issue is not going away.

“This movement continues to grow and build support across this state and around the country, and that growth will continue.”

 


 

 

 

 




387363

Explaining Burma’s missing 9 million people – evaporation, or genocide? Updated for 2026





Last year, when I was in Ma Ja Yang in Northern Kachin State, Burmese fighter bombers, at the height of the peace process, had just flown low over the nearby IDP camp.

Two terrified children dug themselves into an earth bank for refuge. In heavy rains the bank collapsed and they suffocated to death: two unrecorded deaths in a sixty year old war involving, arguably, the deaths of millions.

But this year these two children may have surfaced, along with millions of others, in the most unlikeliest of places: the government’s 2014 census. Burma’s population, it turns out, is about 9 million below what was expected.

Don’t ask, don’t tell

These two children, and 9 million others, are not there. No one is commenting on this. No one is asking why. The most significant and extraordinary information to have come out of the country for decades, identifying 20% of Burma’s expected population is ‘missing’, is disregarded.

This figure cannot be explained away by the flawed methodology of  the census, which, albeit inadvertently, exacerbated the intimidation, persecution and dehumanisation by the Rohingya. It is the result itself which needs to be examined.

The census may in fact have come up with an inconvenient Truth: millions of people may be missing in Myanmar who were expected to be alive based on the perfectly modest realistic estimates of the 1983 census which predicted an annual 2% growth rate.

Exculpatory explanations for some of the missing millions can, admittedly, be made:

  • Many people were simply not counted, including the Rohingya and some Kachin;
  • so called economic migrants, in reality often refugees escaping persecution, were, by their very nature, out of the country;
  • others were inaccessible;
  • AIDS and drug addiction have probably substantially contributed to many premature deaths;
  • 130,000 perished during Cyclone Nargis and its aftermath;
  • cultural practices, such as celibacy and monasticism, may have lowered birthrates;
  • the 1983 census may itself have been flawed.

Finally, the global media’s failure to expose decades long destruction may have contributed to the disregard of the result: people slowly dying over decades do not fit the media’s 24-hour news cycle, especially when most victims have disappeared in remote jungle mountainous terrain far from journalists and diplomats.

These factors, amongst others, may help explain away some of the missing millions, and the disregard of the result. They cannot, however, fully account for 9 million missing people.

Official, but ignored: ‘elements of genocide’

The elephant in the room is government policy. Widespread, systematic human rights violations, i.e., crimes against humanity, have been identified and condemned by successive UN Special Rapporteurs and General Assembly Resolutions since 1992.

The country was specifically placed on the UN Genocide Watch list back in 2005 and, I understand, still remains so. The outgoing UN Special Rapporteur, Tomas Ojea-Quintana, affirmed “Elements of genocide” apply as recently as June 2014.

Genocide, we should remind ourselves, involves the physical “Destruction of ethnic, racial, religious or national groups in whole or”, significantly, “In part”. If even a small fraction of these millions of missing people have disappeared due to government policies, the Genocide Convention would apply.

The decades long systematic violations targeting mostly ethnic civilians with destruction need to be seen in their historical context. UN condemnations have been explicit and specific. Special Rapporteur, Rajsoomer Lallah QC in 1998, condemned widespread, systematic violations, including “The killing of women and children”, as:

“The result of policy taken at the highest level entailing legal and political responsibility.” (Situation of Human Rights Myanmar, para. 59, Report to the UN Economic and Social Council, July, 1998.)

Systematic and widespread violations, inflicted for decades have inevitably caused the deaths of many people; the two aforementioned children died as a consequence of the Burmese army’s military attack.

Exposing the lie of the ‘new Burma’

We need to reflect on 9 million missing people: the number is about the same as the population of Sweden. It is about one and a half times the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust. It is nearly twice the number who died as a result of Stalin’s inflicted famine in the Ukraine.

In Burma nearly one in five people is not alive who was expected to be alive based upon a modest estimate of the 2% population growth rate. Despite its significance, the news does not chime with the media’s brave new world: “Burma Unbound”“Burma booming”, the “Mandela-like transition”. The figure is met instead with silence.

A connection between systematic, widespread human rights violations and possible missing millions exists, however. Martin Smith, generally regarded as a leading authority on Burma’s ethnic peoples, identified a dramatic “slump in birth rates” back in 1990, opining:

“The birth rates of most minority races (and not just the Mons and the Karens) have inexplicably slumped.” (‘Burma, Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity‘, page 38, Zed Books, 1991)

We should note his use of the word “slump”, i.e. a sudden and dramatic fall. This “slump” in birth rates, moreover, has been accompanied by some outright “collapses in population” as identified by Amnesty International:

“In some areas complete collapse in ethnic populations has occurred, such as in Kunhing Township in Shan State where a 70 percent drop in population was recorded.” (‘Atrocities in Shan State‘, Amnesty International, 1998.)

Smith estimated 10,000 dying a year for four decades back in 1990 which would make 400,000. Extrapolated forward to 2014 the figure would approach 550,000, a figure which would be unlikely to include the hundreds of thousands who have died indirectly from denial of shelter, food and medicines.

Nor would it include the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya forced to flee, and often die, in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere. The Transnational Institute cited a figure of 600,000 casualties in 2005.

“The true death toll”, Smith wrote, quoting former SLORC Chairman General Saw Maung vack in the 1980′s, “Would reach as high as millions”. (‘Burma‘, Zed Books, 1990 ed. p.101.)

The ‘Four Cuts’ strategy – aimed at the civilian population

Specific evidence of  widespread destruction has been documented, often graphically, in Karen, Karenni, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Mon, Delta, Karen, Rohingya areas over the decades. Mass forced location of the Bamar population, we should remember, was also inflicted in lowland Burma during the 1990′s.

These “slumps in birth rates”, and local “collapses in population” contrast with earlier “Prolific high birth rates of ethnic peoples” identified in the unique, in depth, detailed bench mark study carried out just before Burma’s civil war began by W.D. Hackett. He explains:

“The minorities … are more prolific than the Burman population and increasing at a very rapid rate.” (‘The Pao People of Shan State‘, p. 3, W.D. Hackett, PhD Thesis, University of Cornell, 1953.)

Although Smith does state the slump in birth rates as being “inexplicable”, observation of what has been inflicted in conflict areas; analyses of infant and maternal mortality rates documented by, amongst others, the Mae Tao Clinic; detailed mapping of widespread, systematic destruction in eastern, western, northern regions and the Delta, including satellite imagery, and numerous reports, demonstrate the destruction must have inevitably resulted in the deaths of large numbers of people.

Moreover, these “collapses in population” and “slumps in birth rates” is certain to be greatest in so called ‘ethnic areas’. If the full regional breakdown of the results of the 2014 census is ever revealed, it will probably confirm this. Latest reports, however, indicate this information is not being released indicative of  a cover up.

We need to ask, however, what government strategies have contributed to the slump in birth rates and much lower than expected population figure.

The central strategy outlined by Smith is known as the Four Cuts strategy which is explicitly intended to destroy the civilian base of resistance. Ethnic civilians are thus the target.

The first circle: deliberate mass killing

Successive military juntas, and the current hybrid civilian / military successor, have been killing and causing deaths for decades.

In January 2013 I was in Kachin State. A young boy, sitting on a wall, described to me how soldiers had come to his mother’s kitchen and shot her while he looked on from the edge of a sugar cane field.

An old man sobbed hysterically next to him: he had just described his daughter bayoneted to death through the left breast. That’s also where I head about the deaths of the two small boys as they hid from fighter bombers.

These small boys, the old man’s daughter and the boy’s mother are part of Myanmar’s missing millions. In this case they died as a result of a systematic onslaught – not ‘ethnic conflict’ –  by the Burma army.

This attack occurred just after President Thein Sein had formally announced a ceasefire on prime time television, supported by a vote of the whole lower house, and dutifully echoed by the global media and Ban Ki Moon.

Along the “ceasefire line” human wave attacks were carried out on Kachin positions involving tens of thousands of troops, helicopter gun ships and fighter bombers. Jane’s Intelligence reportedly estimated 5,000 Burmese troops and 1,000 Kachin were killed – that’s double the number estimated killed in the 1988 student uprising.

These deaths predictably remain disregarded, downplayed, understated or denied. They don’t fit the narrative of democratic transition, or the assumptions of top down, urban, Burman centred journalists, politicians and diplomats whose views have been co-opted by the rhetoric of ‘transition’.

Needless to say young Burmese conscripts, forced to fight and die are also victims and just as deserving of our compassion, as ethnic victims.

Let’s rewind to the autumn of 2000 when I was in the mountainous areas of Karen State. Four women were brought into our encampment who had just been forced to watch their husbands being beheaded in front of them.

Nearby in a burning village two toddlers had been thrown into the flames. Their dying screams were heard in the surrounding hills for minutes.

An old lady, unable to move, burnt to death silently. In a nearby village a Baptist pastor was beaten for three days, his Bible shredded and then beheaded. I could go on.

These people were murdered by the Burmese army. This has been going on for decades, and is still going on. These dead are part of the missing nine million.

These killings include not just individuals, but massacres such as in the Delta in September 2001 and Dooplaya district. Karen State in May 2002 (‘Dying Alive’, Images Asia, 2005)

The second circle: cyclone Nargis 

About 130,000 people, more than the victims of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, died in the Delta as a result of Cyclone Nargis.

Many of these deaths resulted from the Junta’s criminal negligence failing to warn the population and impeding relief efforts.

We can infer that the population of the Delta would now be higher if the government had carried out its responsibilities effectively.

The third circle: sexual violence

If systematic killing is the first circle, denial of aid the second circle, widespread, systematic rape and sexual violence represents the third.

The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Rajsoomer Lallah QC, condemned it as being a “regular, routine feature” and “the result of policy” as far back as 1998. It has been condemned in most UN reports.

This form of targeted violence of women undermines birth rates because, amongst other things, it often destroys women’s desire and ability to marry and have children.

The fourth circle: indirect destruction, denial of medical care

This encompasses those subjected to slow, indirect violence, defined in the Rome Statute as: “The deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food, medical services,  or systematic expulsion from homes.” (Rome Statute, Genocide, Article 6c).

Burning people out of their  homes, like the 3,600 villages documented by the Thai Burma Border Consortium in eastern Burma, or what has been inflicted in Rohingya and Kachin areas recently, leads, indirectly, to death because people lack shelter or basic services.

I remember the gloves of a back pack medic being destroyed in order, presumably, so that babies could not be born hygienically and die as result. I recall a report of  a man shot through the leg for carrying antibiotics in 2005.

The denial and destruction of medical services and supplies, deprivation of clean water and food, often inevitably results in death. The Rohingya are particularly victimised by this slow motion, low intensity form of genocide.

Very many people have died prematurely and unnecessarily over the decades as a result of these deliberately inflicted conditions. Maternal and infant mortality rates in particular, documented by the Mae Tao Clinic and others, resulting from these conditions have been some of the highest in the world.

We should note that 250,000 people, a quarter of a million, have been terrorised out of their homes since the ‘democratic transition’ began and ‘peace’ broke out.

The fifth circle: systematic persecution

In the fifth circle there are the millions who over the decades have been forced to flee persecution, i.e., the denial of their fundamental rights. Many of those in the refugee camps, or those fleeing into the Indian Ocean, or into China, India, Malaysia etc., are not economic migrants, but victims of systematic Persecution.

In the case of the Rohingya,  as the former Special UN Rapporteur asserted, the conditions they are escaping include “elements of genocide”.

The sixth circle: enforced migration

In the sixth circle we do admittedly find very many economic migrants working in foreign countries. Many of these have, however, not really made free choices but have had to escape  the extreme poverty resulting from government policies which have failed to provide people with, amongst other things, adequate medical and educational services.

The seventh circle: general poverty

Here are the great majority of the Burmese people who are mired in the poverty resulting from governmental negligence. Such conditions can lead people to put off, or not marry, or have smaller families than they otherwise would have had, which leads, in turn, to a probable reduction in birth rates.

In conclusion, decades long State inflicted violence and deliberate deprivation of the necessities for life must have resulted in at least hundreds of thousands, and if former SLORC Chairman General Saw Maung was right, “millions”, of premature deaths.

The numerical qualifying criteria of  what comprises the attempted destruction of a part of a people to justify a charge of genocide is: “substantial”.

Those two young children should not have died, nor should hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, be allowed to disappear into a vortex of complicit silence.

A Truth Commission should be set up to find out what has really happened. Perpetrators should be held to account.

And cheerleaders for the bright, new, booming Burma should take a hard, cold look at the country they are applauding, and ask themselves – did the missing 9 million people evaporate? Or are the country’s rulers the perpetrators of a genocide that ranks in scale with Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot?

 


 

Also on The Ecologist:Aung San Suu Kyi: complicity with tyranny‘ by Guy Horton.

This article was originally published by DVB.

Guy Horton has worked on Burma and its border areas since 1998. His 2005 report, “Dying Alive” and supporting video footage, received worldwide coverage and contributed to the submission of Burma to the UN Security Council in January 2007. As a result of the report, the UN Committee on the Prevention of Genocide carried out an investigation and placed Burma/Myanmar on the Genocide Watch list.

Since 2005 Guy Horton has focussed on establishing a coalition of governments, funders, institutions and leading international lawyers with the aim of getting the violations investigated and analysed so that impunity can be addressed. He is currently a researcher at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

He was short-listed for the post of UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Myanmar 2014. He can be contacted at: ghrtn7@gmail.com

 

 




365214

Help us reach the TTIP tipping point! Updated for 2026





In secret the EU and the US are negotiating a new trade deal that would involve a major transfer of power from the public to unaccountable corporations.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is heralded by its advocates as a ‘free trade’ deal that will strengthen economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

But TTIP has little to do with trade – tariffs between the EU and US are already minimal. Instead its provisions are aimed at undermining regulation that protects workers, consumers and the environment and granting unprecedented legal powers to corporations.

Despite a virtual media blackout on the deal, however, the movement against this corporate power grab is growing.

Corporations able to sue governments for profits not made

One of the most alarming and undemocratic aspect of TTIP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows companies to sue governments for making policy changes that could hurt their future profits.

Looking at the effect of ISDS in similar cases around the world suggests this could have significant implications for the ability of the state to legislate in the public interest:

  1. Egypt is currently being sued by Veolia for raising the minimum wage and stands to lose $80million as a consequence.
  2. Last year, Slovakia was forced to pay over €22million to Dutch insurer Achmea when it attempted to introduce public health insurance.
  3. Argentina was successfully sued for over $1billion by water and electricity companies (including EDF) for freezing utility prices.
  4. Canada is being sued for $500 million by big American drug company, Eli Lilly, who claims a Canadian court’s decision to reject a patent on one of their drugs (because it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do) is depriving them of ‘expected future profits’.

ISDS, then, could act as a major deterrent to any future UK government considering whether to renationalise the parts of the NHS that has been sold off to big business, tackle the spiralling energy prices of the Big Six energy companies in the UK, or ban fracking.

Harmonisation? Or a race to the regulatory bottom?

But the corporate power grab does not stop there. TTIP is also set to ‘harmonise’ regulation between the EU and the US, which threatens a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This could lead to:

  • the undermining of worker’s rights such as the right to collective bargaining and the right to holiday;
  • the undoing of regulations to protect the environment, giving harmful industries like fracking an easier ride;
  • the removal of food safety regulation to allow new GM crops, hormone pumped beef and chlorine washed chicken in Europe.

The primary argument that politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders have made in TTIP’s favour is that it will bring jobs and growth.

Indeed, a study commissioned by the EU on the effects of TTIP has shown that the trade deal would lead to between one and two million at least 1 million (and up to 2 million) job losses across the EU and the US.

This is consistent with the effect of previous ‘free trade’ agreements in other parts of the world such as the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, the USA and Canada. Just as it has been the result of previous free trade agreements in other parts of the world.

Promised economic benefits ‘hugely overblown’

With regards to growth, Lord Livingston’s promise of £10 billion pounds extra growth to the UK per year has been strongly criticised by economists such as Dr Gabriel Siles-Brugge for being inaccurate and hugely overblown.

Lately British politicians have taken to more extreme measures to try and combat (rather than addressing) the growing public discontent with TTIP. Lord Livingston has accused campaigners of being “anti-American” even though the US campaign against TTIP also is growing strong.

And last week George Osborne attempted to rally big business to publicly defend the free market ideology against the mass of civil society organisations and trade unions that are opposing it. When politicians start to beg corporations for help to defend their policies, it is a strong sign they are in trouble.

But the movement against TTIP and other undemocratic free trade agreements is growing. In July there was a day of action in the UK in which thousands people took part action in 20 places in the UK

A global day of action against TTIP – today!

And today, this Saturday 11 October, a much expanded mobilisation is taking place – there’ll be over 300 protests across Europe involving tens of thousands of people.

Stretching from the Canary Islands to Scotland, Finland and Greece, actions will be taking place not just in big cities, but also in small towns and rural areas.

In the UK people will be rallying in Parliament Square, doing flash mobs in Edinburgh, engaging in ‘no TTIP tours’ of Bristol and Leeds or involved one of the many other actions.

With this scale of mobilisation, it is not difficult to see why the political establishment are worried. Working with people around the UK to fight TTIP I’ve seen NHS workers join forces with small local businesses and anti-fracking activists come together with trade unionists to campaign.

If we work together we can do much more than defeating TTIP, we can fight for a new democratic and fair economic system free from corporate control.

Join me and tens of thousands of other activists to say no to TTIP.

 


 

Action: information on events, campaign resources.

Petitions

38 Degrees, UK:Dear Vince Cable and the UK TTIP team, please fix or scrap the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership‘.

Change.org, EU: European Commission, ‘Do Not Sign Up to TTIP’

Sumofus, US, EU:Promise to protect our democracies from corporate lawsuits, and stop the secret TPP and TTIP trade pacts‘.

Morten Thaysen is the digital communications assistant at WDM. He is also an activist with Fuel Poverty Action and has previously worked for two years as a campaigns assistant for Action Aid Denmark. He has an MA in Anthropology of Development from SOAS.

This article was originally published by Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0  licence.

Creative Commons License

 




385284

Coca-Cola forced out of $25 million factory in India Updated for 2026





The Coca-Cola company has been forced to abandon a $25 million newly built bottling plant in Mehdiganj, Varanasi, India as the result of a sustained campaign against the company’s plans.

The $25 million plant – which was a significant expansion to its existing plant in Mehdiganj – had already been fully built and the company had also conducted trial runs, but could not operate commercially as it did not have the required permits to operate.

Coca-Cola required permissions, or ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC), from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) – the national groundwater regulatory agency, and the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) – the statewide pollution regulatory agency.

The Central Ground Water Authority rejected Coca-Cola’s application to operate for its new facility on July 21, 2014, and had sought time till 25th August 2014, to announce its decision before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), India’s ‘green’ court.

Coke ‘withdraws’ days before the announcement

Somehow having learnt that its application had been rejected, in order to save itself major embarrassment, Coca-Cola sent a letter to the CGWA on Friday, August 22, 2014 – two days before the rejection was to be made public on Monday, August 25, 2014 – stating that it was “withdrawing” its application.

Bizarrely, Coca-Cola blamed “inordinate delays” by the authority as the reason for its “withdrawal” just two days before the decision was to be made public.

The campaign has worked for the last two years to ensure that the regulators were made aware of the problems being created by Coca-Cola’s existing bottling facility, and the reasons why a five-fold increase in groundwater allowance that Coca-Cola had sought for its new facility would further deteriorate the conditions in the area.

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) had also shut down Coca-Cola’s plant on June 6, 2014 because it found the company to be violating a number of conditions of its license, including a lack of NOC from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA).

Coca-Cola was able to obtain a stay order from the NGT that allowed it to temporarily re-open its existing plant on June 20, 2014

Groundwater shortages followed Coke’s arrival

The groundwater conditions in the Mehdiganj area have gone from ‘safe’ category, when Coca-Cola began operations in June 1999 to ‘critical’ in 2009.

As a result, severe restrictions have been placed by the government on groundwater use by the community and farmers.

“Coca-Cola is a shameless and unethical company that has consistently placed its pursuit of profits over the well-being of communities that live around its facilities”, said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center which has led the campaign to challenge the new plant.

“It is absolutely reprehensible for a globally recognized company like Coca-Cola to seek further groundwater allowances from an area that has become acutely water-stressed, and that in large part due to its own mining of groundwater.”

A ‘major setback’

The loss of the $25 million project is a major setback for Coca-Cola. The company has identified India as a major market where it seeks to derive significant future profits, particularly since Coca-Cola sales are being hit in more developed due to major health concerns.

“We are delighted that the Indian government is doing what it is supposed to do – protect the common property resource of groundwater from rampant exploitation, particularly in water-stressed areas.

“This should serve as a notice to other companies that they cannot run roughshod over Indian rules and regulations and deny community rights over groundwater”, said Srivastava.

 


 

More information: www.IndiaResource.org.

Also on The Ecologist:

 




383176