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 caste 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

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 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

ECONOMICS
OF
PLACHIMADA

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?