from their perspective...by karla robertstad
Coca-Cola has been extracting unsustainable, vast amounts of water in several locations across India. The company draws this water from rivers and wells in areas that were declared water-stressed years before the plants were built. In addition, they are extracting such massive quantities of water that the area may become so depleted, that upwards of a billion people would be forced to migrate out of India in search of water that is clean and domestically viable (Karnani 28). There are four main branches of government; the Supreme Court of India, the national, the state, and the village councils, called a panchayat. Each part of the government has helped and hindered in the public outcry against Coke’s invasive, exploitive and wasteful water extraction; if the governments cannot communicate to enforce riparian legislation, the water of India will be unsuitable for life.
Panchayats are village councils that are responsible for regulating the use of local resources. While these are sometimes weak political bodies, they have significant power in some states, such as in Kerala, where the Panchayat are the people who filed the original lawsuits against Coca-Cola, and also refused to sign their license on several occasions. (Case Against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India). The Panchayat are often overruled by the High Courts, and thus have a difficult time regulating the company.
The state governments have very limited riparian legislation, in fact; only four states have some form if it (TERI 6). It was the state governments that originally drew Coca-Cola to the region; tax incentives were given to Coke so that they would build factories in those states. When Coca-Cola executives were asked why they had located the plants in places that were deemed water stressed, they responded “…The plant was setup after obtaining all necessary clearances from the relevant departments of the government. We do not share due diligence reports externally,” (Karnani 20).Water law is mostly based in the state level of government, and because there are so few states that have it, companies like Coca-Cola are able to make land grabs that result in water grabs.
The national government has been encouraging the state governments since 1970 to adopt riparian legislation that describe the rights of a landowner to extract resources, in detailed amounts and increments, from their own property. (Karnani 18).The national government contains water rights in the Constitution of India under Article 21 as well as riparian legislation. The latest National Water Policy, adopted in 2002, allocated water priorities and “advocates that the exploitation of groundwater resources should be so regulated as not to exceed recharging possibilities and development of efficient water pricing system for use of water” (TERI 4). However, none of the states have established the necessary artificial rainwater catching systems. (Karnani 19). The Water Act required industries to acquire permission before establishing and operating under the conditions applied by the state pollution control boards for wastewater and pollution control (TERI 4).
The Supreme Court of India upholds the Constitution of India, but lacks the ability to enforce it. (Ghoshray 3).
Coca-Cola has two types of plants in India: manufacturing and bottling. Many processes, at different levels of production, draw upon the liquid resource to complete the beverage. The largest corporate consumer of water is Coca-Cola; in 2006 they topped the charts at 288 billion liters. Mehdigani ground water levels were +7.95 meters ten years before Coca-Cola opened their bottling operations there. In contrast, the levels a decade since Coca-Cola bottling operations were at -7.9 meters. Kala Dera saw the ground water levels drop from -3.94 meters to -25.35 meters in the same time span. (Lobina 9). In Kerala, the company drew around 510,000 liters of water per day from wells and boreholes, and for every liter produced, 3.75 liters were used. (Case Against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India). Each level uses an astronomical amount of water, compared to the amount available to use per capita which is 655 liters per year in Rajasthan. It is internationally accepted that a person needs 2000 liters per year, but can live with 1,000 and survive. (Karnani 28). Coca-Cola India reported that the total amount of water used in India breaks down to: 95.06% attributed to irrigation, 4.33% for domestic purposes, and only .61% for industrial use. These numbers indicate that Coca-Cola uses a fair share of water resources; however, in Kala Dera, the number of people that Coca-Cola employs and therefor supports is an average of 150 people at its plant, whereas the irrigation involved in agriculture supports about 92,000 livelihoods. Using these figures, Coca-Cola would be entitled to .15% of the total water usage on this person to person ratio. Government policy asserts that water usage priority goes to drinking, agriculture, power generation, and industrial purposes, in that order, suggesting that this entitlement would be further reduced (Karnani 24).
Excessive water use is not the only problem, however, each production and bottling plant excretes toxic levels of lead and cadmium, pollutants that have caused bodily harm to people of India and damaged crops when the company tried to sell it as a fertilizer. The state of Kerala created a special claims tribunal after an investigation suggested that Coke was liable for US$$ 48 million in damages to the environment and for depleted water resources (Lobina 10).
Solutions
Coca-Cola should install more rain catching systems if they are as effective as they claim them to be, and if not, they should take the responsibility to replenish every drop of water they take from the Indian water reserves by building better and recharging systems. By doing this, Coke would be able to continue production in the country longer, and build a symbiotic relationship with the citizens. If they were able to narrow their water usage to a fair amount, .15% and recharge the aquifers at the same rate they are drawing from them, weather allowing, the governments of India would be far less concerned with their presence. Water does not have a pure substitute; if it disappears from a community, they will suffer devastating effects to their bodies, produce, and way of life. If these needs cannot be met, the course of action would be to shut down these unsustainable plants (TERI 22).
The branches of government are not consistent in their legislation nor are they in the execution of them. The states of India need to unite under riparian legislation so that the Constitution of India may be fully incorporated into the citizens’ lives, and so that, more importantly, water becomes reincorporated into their lives. A property regime that defined the dynamic property at hand, water, as a moving and unequally distributed resource and set a limit on the amount of water to be extracted by each group, will help India to synchronize their citizens’ needs with the wants of the governments. The governments should invest in piping; this would disperse water that is already unequally concentrated, and allow for the governments to regulate how much water is being distributed, and to whom. Coca-Cola and other water intensive industries must become sustainable if they are to continue to operate in India; failure to do so would lead to unheard of repercussions: an entire country, over one billion people, will need to migrate to find new homes, new sources of water, and new allies.
Bibliography
n.d.
Case Against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India. n.d. 16 April 2013. <http://www.righttowater.info/ways-to-influence/legal-approaches/case-against-coca-cola-kerala-state-india/>.
Ghoshray, Saby. "Searching for Human Rights to Water Amidst Corporate Privatization in India: Hindustan Coca-Cola Pvt. Ltd. v. Perumatty Grama Panchayat." Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (2007): 643.
Karnani, Aneel. "Corporate Social Responsibility Does Not Avert the Tragedy ." Stephen M. Ross School of Business (2012): 32.
Lobina, David Hall and Emanuele. "Conflicts, companies, human rights and water ." Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) (2012): 23.
TERI. "Executive summary of the study on independent third party." 2006.
TERI Report on Coca-Cola’s Water Resource Management Policies and Practices in India Background Information from Meridian Institute on Ensuring an Independent Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Meridian Institute, 2008.
Panchayats are village councils that are responsible for regulating the use of local resources. While these are sometimes weak political bodies, they have significant power in some states, such as in Kerala, where the Panchayat are the people who filed the original lawsuits against Coca-Cola, and also refused to sign their license on several occasions. (Case Against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India). The Panchayat are often overruled by the High Courts, and thus have a difficult time regulating the company.
The state governments have very limited riparian legislation, in fact; only four states have some form if it (TERI 6). It was the state governments that originally drew Coca-Cola to the region; tax incentives were given to Coke so that they would build factories in those states. When Coca-Cola executives were asked why they had located the plants in places that were deemed water stressed, they responded “…The plant was setup after obtaining all necessary clearances from the relevant departments of the government. We do not share due diligence reports externally,” (Karnani 20).Water law is mostly based in the state level of government, and because there are so few states that have it, companies like Coca-Cola are able to make land grabs that result in water grabs.
The national government has been encouraging the state governments since 1970 to adopt riparian legislation that describe the rights of a landowner to extract resources, in detailed amounts and increments, from their own property. (Karnani 18).The national government contains water rights in the Constitution of India under Article 21 as well as riparian legislation. The latest National Water Policy, adopted in 2002, allocated water priorities and “advocates that the exploitation of groundwater resources should be so regulated as not to exceed recharging possibilities and development of efficient water pricing system for use of water” (TERI 4). However, none of the states have established the necessary artificial rainwater catching systems. (Karnani 19). The Water Act required industries to acquire permission before establishing and operating under the conditions applied by the state pollution control boards for wastewater and pollution control (TERI 4).
The Supreme Court of India upholds the Constitution of India, but lacks the ability to enforce it. (Ghoshray 3).
Coca-Cola has two types of plants in India: manufacturing and bottling. Many processes, at different levels of production, draw upon the liquid resource to complete the beverage. The largest corporate consumer of water is Coca-Cola; in 2006 they topped the charts at 288 billion liters. Mehdigani ground water levels were +7.95 meters ten years before Coca-Cola opened their bottling operations there. In contrast, the levels a decade since Coca-Cola bottling operations were at -7.9 meters. Kala Dera saw the ground water levels drop from -3.94 meters to -25.35 meters in the same time span. (Lobina 9). In Kerala, the company drew around 510,000 liters of water per day from wells and boreholes, and for every liter produced, 3.75 liters were used. (Case Against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India). Each level uses an astronomical amount of water, compared to the amount available to use per capita which is 655 liters per year in Rajasthan. It is internationally accepted that a person needs 2000 liters per year, but can live with 1,000 and survive. (Karnani 28). Coca-Cola India reported that the total amount of water used in India breaks down to: 95.06% attributed to irrigation, 4.33% for domestic purposes, and only .61% for industrial use. These numbers indicate that Coca-Cola uses a fair share of water resources; however, in Kala Dera, the number of people that Coca-Cola employs and therefor supports is an average of 150 people at its plant, whereas the irrigation involved in agriculture supports about 92,000 livelihoods. Using these figures, Coca-Cola would be entitled to .15% of the total water usage on this person to person ratio. Government policy asserts that water usage priority goes to drinking, agriculture, power generation, and industrial purposes, in that order, suggesting that this entitlement would be further reduced (Karnani 24).
Excessive water use is not the only problem, however, each production and bottling plant excretes toxic levels of lead and cadmium, pollutants that have caused bodily harm to people of India and damaged crops when the company tried to sell it as a fertilizer. The state of Kerala created a special claims tribunal after an investigation suggested that Coke was liable for US$$ 48 million in damages to the environment and for depleted water resources (Lobina 10).
Solutions
Coca-Cola should install more rain catching systems if they are as effective as they claim them to be, and if not, they should take the responsibility to replenish every drop of water they take from the Indian water reserves by building better and recharging systems. By doing this, Coke would be able to continue production in the country longer, and build a symbiotic relationship with the citizens. If they were able to narrow their water usage to a fair amount, .15% and recharge the aquifers at the same rate they are drawing from them, weather allowing, the governments of India would be far less concerned with their presence. Water does not have a pure substitute; if it disappears from a community, they will suffer devastating effects to their bodies, produce, and way of life. If these needs cannot be met, the course of action would be to shut down these unsustainable plants (TERI 22).
The branches of government are not consistent in their legislation nor are they in the execution of them. The states of India need to unite under riparian legislation so that the Constitution of India may be fully incorporated into the citizens’ lives, and so that, more importantly, water becomes reincorporated into their lives. A property regime that defined the dynamic property at hand, water, as a moving and unequally distributed resource and set a limit on the amount of water to be extracted by each group, will help India to synchronize their citizens’ needs with the wants of the governments. The governments should invest in piping; this would disperse water that is already unequally concentrated, and allow for the governments to regulate how much water is being distributed, and to whom. Coca-Cola and other water intensive industries must become sustainable if they are to continue to operate in India; failure to do so would lead to unheard of repercussions: an entire country, over one billion people, will need to migrate to find new homes, new sources of water, and new allies.
Bibliography
n.d.
Case Against Coca-Cola Kerala State: India. n.d. 16 April 2013. <http://www.righttowater.info/ways-to-influence/legal-approaches/case-against-coca-cola-kerala-state-india/>.
Ghoshray, Saby. "Searching for Human Rights to Water Amidst Corporate Privatization in India: Hindustan Coca-Cola Pvt. Ltd. v. Perumatty Grama Panchayat." Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (2007): 643.
Karnani, Aneel. "Corporate Social Responsibility Does Not Avert the Tragedy ." Stephen M. Ross School of Business (2012): 32.
Lobina, David Hall and Emanuele. "Conflicts, companies, human rights and water ." Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) (2012): 23.
TERI. "Executive summary of the study on independent third party." 2006.
TERI Report on Coca-Cola’s Water Resource Management Policies and Practices in India Background Information from Meridian Institute on Ensuring an Independent Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Meridian Institute, 2008.