Sais decision approves, with small adjustments and revisions, a draft issued and set for public consultation in August 2016, against which objections and reservations have publicly been expressed by Savegreekwater, as well as several other interested parties.

Through this Decision (nr. 135275, GG Β1751) water services users will be from now on burdened with paying the so called Recovery Costs of said services. Water has become a commodity, while water services companies will not differ anymore to any private profit-oriented and money-grabbing enterprise, despite them being constitutionally considered public services.

Specifically: the pricing of water services, contrary to the stipulations of Decision 1906/2014 of the Council of State, will aim to covering all costs of the company providing these (art. 9.1). Such pricing will include following items:

A’ Financial Cost (art. 4 and Annex Ι): this will include the cost of the invested capital, based on the annual depreciation of the provider’s assets; alternative use cost based on the profits the invested capital would yield if used for other purposes; operation cost, based on both standard and extraordinary operation expenses; maintenance cost; and management cost which includes the fees of any third parties. If water has to be transported to an arid area the users will be burdened with the extra cost, unless a state subsidy is available. All this leads to water services users in Greece being asked not only to pay once more for water services infrastructures and network, which have been paid through taxation both by this and several previous generations (this has happened several times in the near past) but also to cover any sums a water company will claim (with hindsight) as loss of profit for having its capital used to supply water instead of having been invested in some other “profitable” activity. That such activities may include absolutely anything has been proved by EYDAP’s contribution to last year’s capital  increase of Attica Bank: this led to EYDAP losing € 17 million out of 20. As an addition the financial cost includes a “reasonable return” of private funds invested with EYDAP and/or EYATh: for the nth time the Greek Government interprets private enterprise as state guaranteed profits.

B’ Environmental cost (art. 5 and Annex ΙΙ), which, among others, will be imposed also on the occasion of a negative chemical condition of subterranean water deposits due to non-natural (sic) causes. Everyone knows of the Government of Greece being hesitant to impose fines on polluting businesses, but someone has to pay the cost, and the users of water services may prove an easy target.

C’ Resource cost (art. 6 and Annex ΙΙΙ) which includes costs incurred due to the bad management of water resources. No penalty for those responsible for such bad management is imposed. The environmental cost and the resource cost added up (art. 7) will constitute the Environmental Fees: such shall be written “clearly and explicitly” on the bill (as are the fees paid by energy users for similar reasons and ending up becoming subsidies to private businesses) and will be transferred, almost in its entirety, to the infamous Green Fund with the aim of being used, under quite general terms, in actions dealing with water. Vulnerable groups may be excluded from paying said environmental fees as are those entities that “through correct management of water resources contribute to the maintenance and/or improvement of the condition of such; these include enterprises dealing with waste re-use (there is a quite small number of such businesses in Greece, all belonging –directly or indirectly- to the richest 0,1%; q.e.d.)

Art. 9 (General pricing procedures) provides for an increase on bills if costs’ cut down does not by itself suffice for covering costs recovery. In order to convince the users that such increases will not be excessive it is stated that such cannot be higher than the GDP increase, or can be as high as double the GDP increase in certain cases (as if GDP fluctuations had anything to do with our personal income!)

Art. 14, titled “General Rules and Directions for the Improvement of Water Services”, actually lists conditions under which increases in water prices can be imposed.

As per the above this Decision proves that the negative results of water services privatization cannot only be reached through the transfer of water companies shares to private entities but can also be achieved by a State that long ago has stopped caring for the interests of its people preferring rather to protect and increase the profits of a small minority.

In addition there is recent Law 4472/2017 dealing (once more) with the transfer to the new Superfund of assets of the Greek State, among which the shares of EYDAP and EYATh: this law continues on the path of applying policies that have continuously been proved to be disastrous for the vast majority of the inhabitants of this country by targeting in general our economic and social well being and in particular our/everyone’s Right to Water.

This decision has been approved by ministers Panagiotis Skourletis (Interior), Dimos Papadimitriou (Economy and Progress), Eukleides Tsakalotos (Finances), Andreas Xanthos (Health), Christos Spirtzis (Infrastructures and Transport) and Evangelos Apostolou (Agriculture & Food) and (Deputy Minister of Environment and Power)

Case was scheduled to be heard at 9 a.m. on Monday 2^nd January. Court procedures in Greece are open to everyone, but when we tried to enter the building we were intercepted by the police. When councilor Theodoropoulos, an Athens lawyer acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, asked the Judge why people were not allowed to attend he received the answer that the Judge had not given such an order! If not he, then who gave it? We did not find out!

We waited outside the building in low temperatures: obviously public attendance of Court sessions (whatsmore in cases that have a strong impact on public interests, as is the giving away of € 40 m. of EYDAP’s reserves) is not a priority in today’s Greece.

The case was heard in the presence of EYDAP’s Head of Legal Services and a private practicing lawyer (despite EYDAP having its own such Service), a representative of Piraeus Bank (responsible for the transfer of the sums to the shareholders) and representatives of the Greek State and HRADF.

We were told that the decision would be made public at 12 noon: instead we waited until well past 1430 to hear that Injunction has been denied. The case (on which the petition for injunction was based) will be heard on March 20^th, which means that the shareholders will most probably have received their dividends by then.

The text of the Petition can be found in Greek at the SEKES webpage.

(Photos and videos are available in the greek version of this post).

Lots of Greek households (much more than in the past) are unable to pay their water and sewerage bills: state owned and run EYDAP has cut water supply to many of these, thus denying them their human right to water (as recognized by the UN Assembly). EYDAP, instead of supporting such clients decided to give its shareholders a Christmas gift of € 40 m. One of the beneficiaries is the infamous John Paulson, a billionaire that may be (co)-responsible for the real-estate bubble in the US.

At the shareholders meeting George Sinioris, president of OME – EYDAP (EYDAP Federation of Employees’ Unions), explained why and how such an action may prove destructive for the company’s investment program and its financial independence; he also pleaded that EYDAP should act in a more humanitarian and socially-oriented way, which, constitutes its statutory obligation. The shareholders denied any discussion on the issue. The shareholders also refrained from voting on an alternate use of this sum, submitted by SEKES, which (use) would allow both the unhindered continuation of the company’s investment programme as well as the subsidizing of those clients who, because of the crisis raging in Greece during the last eight years, are unable pay their bills. In addition, SEKES proposal asked for the re-establishment of public faucets, that existed some time ago but are nowadays nowhere to be seen.

The shareholders’ meeting took place in the premises of the Athens Stock Market (instead of the EYDAP premises), that were surrounded by several platoons of Riot-Police, arrayed there in order to deny entrance to workers and citizens (among them members of SAVEGREEKWATER) that, despite the strong cold, had gathered there to protest against this evaporation of € 40 m. of, actually if not formally, public money. Despite the cold and the rain the police denied entrance even to the yard to anyone not allowed to the meeting.

The shareholders’ decision acts definitely against the public interest and proves that EYDAP has already actually become a prey for those wishing to obtain swift and guaranteed profits, even before its management gets transferred to HCAP as it has been voted in September 30 2016..

Giving away € 40 m., after having lost another € 17 m. through a so called investment in Attica Bank’s capital increase (€ 20 m. of the EYDAP reserves have been thrown away to this purpose) is a strong reason why public control of EYDAP (and of course all other public services institutions) is long due. Such profit-only oriented management of public services companies, that has been condemned through Decision 1906/2014 of the Greek Council of State, is only one item in a long list of actions and omissions by the Greek Governments and other state services and institutions that have led to Human Rights having become a phrase without any meaning in today’s Greece.

We demand that every competent authority (from the Greek Prime Minister down) make public any and all items, discussions and resolutions that can throw a light on how such decision was decided upon and also whether it constitutes one of the obligations undertaken to Greece’s creditors. Greek citizens have the right to know and comment upon any decision taken on their behalf: decisions reached behind closed doors have no place in a country that calls itself democratic.

We stay, of course, completely and absolutely against the above shareholders’ decision: as citizens of an EU country and as users of EYDAP’s services we will continue our campaign for Water to become, formally and actually, a human right and a public good whose management is subject to the citizens’ control.

SAVEGREEKWATER – a Citizens’ Initiative for the Non-Privatization of Water

Introduction: A Human Right to Water and Sanitation Toolkit for Global Water Justice Activists

By Meera Karunananthan

The global water justice movement has distinguished itself from conservationist organizations and traditional human rights advocacy groups by focusing on systemic injustices related to the use, distribution and control of freshwater supplies. Global water justice groups are not only concerned with access to drinking water and sanitation services, but also with the questions of who controls and owns our water, who defines policies related to freshwater and how priorities are determined when it comes to access. They have challenged the ways in which the neoliberal economic model has sought to answer these questions, calling instead for a water justice approach based on common ownership, collective control, equitable access and sustainable use to preserve healthy watersheds for future generations.

Over the past two decades the struggle for water justice has been linked with campaigns for formal recognition of the human right to water and sanitation, which has prompted some debate about the value of human rights instruments in addressing root causes of injustices arising from free-market policies.

This project is an attempt to bridge the gaps between human-rights based campaigns and water justice ethics by demonstrating how human rights campaigns can effectively challenge neoliberal policies pertaining to the control, use and distribution of freshwater. It is the result of discussions between grassroots activists, water justice organizations and legal scholars to provide information that would support the creation of human rights to water and sanitation policies. It is our hope that these policies will empower frontline communities and grassroots groups in their efforts to stop the corporate takeover of water, whether in the form of privatization of water and sanitation services, the use of lakes and rivers as dumpsites for extractive industries, or over-extraction by beverage companies.

Not only does this set of educational tools provide information to support campaigns for universal access to sufficient, safe, affordable, accessible and acceptable drinking water and sanitation services, it recognizes that that the protection of watersheds for future generations, the equitable distribution and democratic control of scarce freshwater supplies and essential services are integral to the achievement of universal access. The resources contained in this toolkit acknowledge and aim to challenge the threats posed by the neoliberal economic model to the full and universal realization of the human rights to water and sanitation.

The resources contained in this guide are drawn from successful local and national campaigns to articulate a vision for the human right to water that will empower local communities to defend their rights to water and sanitation against the growing threats of neoliberalization through austerity measures, development loan conditions, trade agreements and investment treaties.

They include:

1. A Water Justice Vision for the Normative Content and Principles of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation:
   This section draws from international examples and case law to demonstrate how the normative content and principles of the human right to water and sanitation can support campaigns for equitable access, sustainable use and collective control.

2. The Freshwater Commons and the Public Trust Doctrine
   This report explains how an important principle existing within various legal systems can support campaigns to enshrine elements of the human rights to water and sanitation

3. The Uruguayan Model: Protecting the human right to water and sanitation by banning privatization
   Given the growing list of human rights violations resulting from the privatization of water and sanitation services, this portion of the toolkit draws on the Uruguayan example to argue that the human rights to water and sanitation can be codified in a manner that prohibits private sector participation

4. Fighting the Dispossession of Peasants and Rural Communities
   This section draws from key policy initiatives and the local and international level to expand the definition and applications of the human rights to water and sanitation to include access to water for food production, public participation in decision-making and healthy environments through collective control of freshwater supplies, to fight the marginalization of rural communities.

Contributors to the Water Policy module

Meera Karunananthan is the international water campaigner for the Blue Planet Project. The Blue Planet Project is an international project that works with communities and organizations around the world to defend the water commons and promote the human rights to water and sanitation. Meera completed a Master’s thesis examining the corporate appropriation of right to water discourse and its impact on public policy and is currently pursuing a PhD in geography at the University of Ottawa.

Luis Francisco López Guzmán is an environmental lawyer with a master’s degree in environmental law. He is a PhD candidate currently working as the Director of Health Regulation and Legislation in the Ministry of Health and is affiliated with the Salvadoran environmental NGO UNES. He previously served as head of the policy team responsible for drafting El Salvador’s General Water Bill, the Legal framework on Continental Waters and Aquifers, the constitutional reform on the Human Right to Water and the Treaty on Integrated and Sustainable Water Resource Management dealing with transboundary waters shared by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Adriana Marquisio is the Head of the Department of international and national solidarity at Urguay’s public water utility, OSE. As a fourth generation water worker in her family, Adriana Marquisio has worked at OSE since 1984. She is a co-founder of the Uruguayan water justice network (Comisión en Defensa del Agua y la Vida) and a co-founder of the water justice network of the Americas, la Red Vida. She served as Vice-President of the water workers union, FFOSE from 2003 to 2005 and Vice-President of Federation of public workers from 2009 to 2011. She has been involved in several global water justice initiatives including the Platform for public-public and public-community partnerships and the Blue October initiative.

James Olson is a Michigan-based lawyer who has represented citizens and communities in cases involving public trust, water and other environmental issues. He is the founder and President of FLOW (Flow for Love of Water), a Great Lakes Water Policy Center. He has written books and articles, and lectured widely on environmental, land use, water, and public trust law for over 40 years. He also teaches at the Great Lakes Water Studies Institute, Northwestern Michigan College. He has appeared in the films “FLOW For Love of Water” and “Blue Gold.” He has received many awards, including Michigan Lawyers’ Weekly Lawyer of the Year and the State Bar of Michigan Champion of Justice.

Robert Ramsay is the Senior Research Officer for the Municipal Sector at the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ottawa. Prior to this, he worked in research, collective bargaining, and campaigns at the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Robert has graduate degrees in Urban Geography and Communications. He has worked internationally in labour and education, and remains active in social justice work both in Canada and in his native United States.

Britton Schwartz is a clinical fellow and supervising attorney at the Berkeley Law Environmental Law Clinic. The clinic engages students in policymaking, litigation and legislation related to local and global environmental issues with a particular focus on the overlap between environmental protection and social justice. Prior to joining the clinic, Britton helped develop and run the International Human Rights Clinic at Santa Clara University’s School of Law. Her work has focused on environmental justice challenges facing low-income and homeless communities of color and indigenous peoples in the United States and Latin America, with an emphasis on the human rights to water and sanitation.

The article that was added to the Constitution is the following:

Article 70a (Right to drinking water)
Everyone has the right to drinking water.
Water sources are public good managed by the state.
Water resources serve primarily as the sustainable supply of drinking water and water for households and in this part are not treated as a commodity that can be traded with.
Drinking water supplied to the public and to households is provided by the state through local communities direct and non-profit.

“From the 30th January 2016 to 11th March, we have collected a list of more than 51,000 signatures in support of having the inalienable right to water written into the Constitution. We handed this list to the National Assembly on 11th March. Our Citizens initiative therefore has to this date the backing of almost 3 percent of the voting population. Even after handing in the petition signatures, we have continued our efforts by working on a positive pressure and discussing the matter with water and legal professionals. We have also engaged public authorities covering the area of water, political parties and representatives of citizen initiatives in an open discussion. The objective of our actions was to be clearly written into the Constitution that water and water land is a natural public good, over which no-one can acquire ownership rights; that everyone has the right to drinking water; that the water supply of the population cannot be owned by private companies in any legal-formal way, and that the provision of the water supply to the public is a service which should not generate profit and that the water supply of the population has the absolute precedence over economic exploitation in the case of the water crisis or drought or other crises, and that the water resources be managed sustainably, with thoughts on our posterity.By written down unalienable right to drinking water into the Constitution we are thinking about the future in the present, we will show Europe and the world that Slovenian drinking water is a public good that cannot and will not be privatized and should permanently and primarily be used to supply the population (and animals) and only after that for economic purposes in Slovenia and export purposes, provided the water supply allows for it” writes the announcement by the activists of “Civil initiative For Slovenia and freedom, Water into the Constitution, water into the conscience”

Last night the Parliament held the voting. With 64 votes in favour and none against, the 90-seat parliament added an article to the EU country’s constitution saying “everyone has the right to drinkable water”. The centre-right opposition Slovenian Democratic party (SDS) abstained from the vote saying the amendment was not necessary and only aimed at increasing public support. Slovenia is a mountainous, water-rich country with more than half its territory covered by forest. “Water resources represent a public good that is managed by the state. Water resources are primary and durably used to supply citizens with potable water and households with water and, in this sense, are not a market commodity,” the article reads.

The centre-left prime minister, Miro Cerar, had urged lawmakers to pass the bill saying the country of two million people should “protect water – the 21st century’s liquid gold – at the highest legal level”. “Slovenian water has very good quality and, because of its value, in the future it will certainly be the target of foreign countries and international corporations’ appetites.“As it will gradually become a more valuable commodity in the future, pressure over it will increase and we must not give in,” Cerar said.

Slovenia is the first European Union country to include the right to water in its constitution, although according to Rampedre (the online Permanent World Report on the Right to Water) 15 other countries across the world had already done so.

Trade Unions and Civil Society Welcome the Introduction of the Human Right to Water into the Constitution of Slovenia

Joint Press Release by EPSU, Food & Water Europe and European Water Movement*:

Last night the National Assembly of Slovenia passed an amendment to its Constitution to include a new article that recognizes the Human Right to Water. The amendment affirms water should be treated as a public good managed by the state, not as a commodity, and that drinking water must be supplied by the public sector in a non-for-profit basis. It is a great success for Slovenian activists and people.

“Citizens from across the EU and Europe have successfully mobilized to have the right to water and sanitation recognized as a human right – as decided by the United Nations – and have this put into EU law. The European Commission continues to ignore nearly two million voices of the first ever successful European Citizens Initiative. Commissioner Vella should listen to citizens and follow the Slovenian example as soon as possible,” said Jan Willem Goudriaan, EPSU General Secretary.

Water is a controversial topic in Slovenia, as foreign companies from the food and beverage industry are buying rights to a large amount of local water resources. The Slovenian government has raised concerns about the impacts of free trade agreements like CETA in its capacity to control and regulate these resources [1].

“Trade agreements and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms can limit the ability of states to take back public control over water resources when foreign investors are involved, as it is the case in Slovenia. To guarantee the right to water and the control over this key resource, the European and the Slovenian Parliaments should reject CETA when it comes to a vote in the coming months,” said David Sánchez, Director of Food & Water Europe.

The amendment is the result of a citizens’ initiative that collected 51.000 signatures to propose a constitutional amendment [2].

“We welcome the introduction of the human right to water in the Slovenian constitution, as the great result of a citizens’ initiative. Now civil society should be vigilant to guarantee a democratic and transparent management of the integrated water cycle founded in the participation of citizens and workers,” said Jutta Schütz, speakperson at the European Water Movement.

• SAVEGREEKWATER is a member of the European Water Movement since 2012.

——

Notes

[1] The Slovenian government raised concerns about the ambiguity of terms like “commercial use of a water source” in CETA, how the agreement applies to existing water rights and the future ability of national governments to put limits on concessions already granted without being subject to claim under ICS, among others. The document can be found here
https://europeanwater.org/images/pdf/Slovenia-questions-on-Water_14-9-2016.pdf

[2] More information about this citizen’s initiative can be found at their website
https://voda.svoboda.si/

Contact:

Jutta Schütz, Speakperson, European Water Movement, +49 (0) 157 390 808 39 (mobile), juttaschuetz(at)gmx.de

David Sánchez, Director, Food & Water Europe, +32 (0) 2893 1045 (land), +32 (0) 485 842 604 (mobile), dsanchez(at)fweurope.org

Guillaume Durivaux, Policy officer, EPSU, +32 (0) 22501041, gdurivaux(at)epsu.org

PDF file of this press release
European Public Service Union – Food & Water Europe – European Water Movement

• The control of the services which are transferred in their entirety to the Superfund is now in the hands of an organization which is not pubic, according to its founding provisions.(1)
• The Greek governments cease to control the management of these services since they give it away to the Supervisory Board of the Superfund which, in practice, is controlled by Greece’s creditors.(2)
• Both major water services cease to have as object the one defined in their statute, meaning the provision of water and sanitation in Athens and Thessaloniki and they are instrumentalized in order to serve a foreign to their object purpose, the purpose of the Superfund.(3)
• The Greek Government has already approved the sell-off of 11% of EYDAP and 23% of EYATH and therefore private investors are going to enter the Board of both companies. If combined with a friendly to their interests management, these new players have the possibility to fully implement their agenda despite the fact that they possess only a minority of the stocks.(4)

For all the aforementioned reasons we announce today that our initiative in collaboration with other interested parties is proceeding according to the provision of the Greek Law to the necessary legal actions in order to annul the transfer of EYDAP and EYATH to the Superfund.

At the same time, we continue our campaign against water privatization so that our fellow citizens stay continuously informed with regard to its devastating consequences.(5)

Finally, on the premise that the EU Commission must stay neutral in the matter of private or public management of the water services, we demand the disclosure and publication of any correspondence or oral discussions’ minutes between the Greek Government and the Institutions regarding the transfer of EYDAP and EYATH to the Superfund.(6)

We would like to remind to everyone that the Greek citizens have repeatedly expressed their will in an official democratic way and in their vast majority stand against water privatization of any sort.(7) There can be no governance based on the Rule of Law which disrespects a country’s Supreme Court and there can be no democratic state which ignores the will of its People.

You can support this struggle by volunteering here.

SAVEGREEKWATER

(1) The two companies are privatized in violation of the Constitution as judged by the Supreme Court decision 1906/2014 as all their assets and subsidiaries are transferred to the Superfund which as it is noted in Art. 184 p4 L4389/2016 “does not belong to the public or broader public sector, in the way that each is defined.”

(2) Management and administration of the two companies will therefore be controlled, in practice, by the creditors, taking into account that: a) the Supervisory Board of the Super Fund consists of 5 members two of which are appointed by the creditors (with the consent of the Minister of Finance) and three from the Greek government (with the consent of the creditors) and that b) between the borrower Greek State and the creditors, there is no equal footing since the latter may impose what they want, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past.We shall point out that the Fund’s Board of Directors (appointed by the Supervisors per art. 192.2a of L. 4389/2016) is entitled, among other issues, to execute contracts including such dealing with the supply and provision of services, as are those offered by EYDAP and EYATh. Per art. 194.8 of same Law the Meetings of the Board as well as the Minutes of such and any relevant documents are to be kept secret, despite the fact that such deal with the administration and/or the alienation of Public Property. Furthermore (per art. 202.2 of same Law) the Fund and all subsidiary companies (with the exception of MSF and HRADF) “…in order to proceed with the privatization of any of their assets (in our case the stock of EYDAP and EYATh) may sell, assign and/or in any other possible way transfer any and all properties and/or contractual or real rights (of EYDAP and EYATh) to any capital stock companies and then transfer their shares to any third person/legal entity”. Art. 202.3 of same Law allows the Fund and its subsidiaries (except MSF and HRADF) “…to lease any asset and assign any right of use as well as the administration of any asset … as they consider expedient”

(3) The two companies cease to be public utility agencies with the objective of providing uninterrupted and quality services of water and sanitation to the citizens of Athens and Thessaloniki. They are instrumentalized in a contradictory to their scope way, since they will become by law simple “assets” in EDHS’ portfolio and will serve the Super- Fund’s “specific scope”, as it is mentioned in article 185 para. 1: “The Company manages and leverages its assets in order to: a) contribute resources to implement the investment policy of the country and to proceed to investments that contribute to the enhancement of the development of the Greek economy and b) contribute to the fulfillment of financial obligations of the Greek Republic under Law 4336/2015 (a 94)”.

(4)Decision no33 of the Govermental Council of Economic Policy (Government Gazette 1472B/2016)

(5) In the last 15 years there have been at least 235 cases of water remunicipalisation in 37 countries, both in the global North and South, including high profile cases in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa.

(6) The agreement between the Greek government and its creditors to include EYDAP and EYATH in the new Super-Fund constituteS by both parties, a scandalous breach of the democratically expressed will of the people as this has been recorded at the Thessaloniki referendum on the 18th of May 2014 (where 98,03% of Thessalonians voted against the privatization of EYATh) but also after the successful completion of the ECI right2water in our country and at European level,  demanding the adoption of the human right to water by the EU and the protection of water services from liberalization. (During the procedure the official signatures by Greek citizens surpassed 32.000, when the threshold was 16.000, while in Europe in overall the signatures were more than 1.800.000, when the threshold for a successful ECI is 1.000.000.

(7)According to regulation EC1049/2001 (30 May 2001) with regard to the public access to documents of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council and Article 255(2) of the EC Treaty, in combination with the Article 345 of TFEU and Article 171 of Directive 2006/123/EC regarding the internal market services which dictates that the European Commission is bound to stay neutral in the matter of public or private management of the water services.

To a sad demonstration of the quality of the Rule of Law in our country, this draft is being promoted after the failed and persistent effort of domestic and foreign interests for the immediate and full privatization of water services in Greece and unfortunately results in similar consequences to home and other consumers who are now required to pay newly invented “costs” that bring us all face to face not only with the full commercialization of water services but also with that of our water as a resource.

Of course, this irrational and non-scientific attempt to put a “price tag to nature” by assigning “costs” to the preservation of ecosystems and water resources is not an invention of the Greek ministry but is a consistent pursuit of those multinational companies which use “eco-friendly” rhetoric in order to create an “ecosystems market” and even a “water market”, similar to that of Co2 emissions that we have by now evidenced how little it helped to reduce them.

These interests through their lobbyists have managed to “influence” the European Commission’s decisions and thus with the art. 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC, to which the national law is aligning with the MD in “consultation”, the “Full cost Recovery” term was inserted and it was made a guideline for implementation on all Water Services. Hence, in short, under this principle, the member states, when calculating the tariffs of water, they must take into account (as discussed in the second article of the MD under “consultation”) the financial cost, the environmental cost and the resource cost.

To decode the deception against citizens’ interests it is necessary to refer to the three definitions given to these concepts by its creators

A.The “financial cost” is defined as “the economic evaluation of the cost for all projects, infrastructure and processes necessary for services such as water provision, for the uses of Article 2 par. 1 MD. The financial costs include capital costs, operating costs, maintenance costs and management costs.

According to this new definition of financial costs:

1) Consumers are invited to pay once more for infrastructure projects which were paid for decades through a) taxation of generations of Greeks and Europeans (when it comes to infrastructure projects funded by European funds), b) loans that are now part of the unsustainable public debt and c) water bills and fixed fees.

2) They are also asked to pay for non-existent, under construction or shoddy infrastructure projects in regions of the province where in many cases, the competent authorities are unable to provide clean drinking water and sanitation networks do not even exist.

3) They are required to pay the profits of subcontractors who prey on the services sector as it is very clearly stated in Article 4, paragraph 2 bb) since in the definition of the “operating costs” it is included the “cost of concession contracts with third parties”. Just recently such an “innovative” contract was signed by EYDAP which paid a private company to “assess” the existing staff. Such a task was done in-house until today at no “cost” and at any rate it could also be improved in-house if it was necessary.

4) They are required to pay the cost of capital i.e. on the performance of alternative placements (No. 4 par.2.a.av). For example, If a water provider claims that it would earn more if the money given for network maintenance were invested in another activity will we have to pay the “alleged loss of its earnings”? Let us not say naively that water utilities by their constitution have a duty to invest only in infrastructure since only this year EYDAP «invested» € 20,000,000 in Attica Bank. Furthermore, according to the MD consumers must also pay for a secured “reasonable profit” of the private investors in EYATh and EYDAP (Annex 1 a2) without of course quantifying this flexible concept of ‘reasonable’, in a provision of true state “generosity” as if the private investors have any guarantee of profitability when investing in a company in the private sector. This year the dividends that EYDAP distributed were almost 22 million (profits 138 million). But apparently this amount is not “reasonable” and we should all chip in.

B.The “Environmental cost” is defined as “the economic evaluation of the deviation of water status from good status which is required for sustainable utilization of the water resources in accordance with the environmental objectives of Article 4 of Decree 51/2007. “

1) Scientific glory awaits any scientist who succeeds in defining the “cost per cubic meter ‘as the MD claims for the misty “rehabilitation works” (shouldn’t we first study what those might be?) to turn “sustainable” an aqueous stock or a water basin. We wait to see how many municipal water companies and how many municipalities served by EYDAP and EYATh will have zero environmental cost charges unless all regions of the country have no “sustainable” water reserves.

2) Even if science succeeds nothing gives us hope that these policies will. In this plan, no specific action is defined nor is it described as mandatory. The money raised from environmental charges will result in the notorious and largely inert “Green Fund” and from there who knows where and when, since there is no time provision for any rehabilitation works and the only reason why the author characterizes the fee as “contributory” is because otherwise it would blatantly violate the constitution.

3) Isn’t the environmental cost a mere revenue raising fee if we take into consideration a region of the country where the aquatic reserve restoration works would skyrocket such a fee if it was calculated precisely?

4) Quite interesting are two of the exemptions from the environmental charges: (a) users who, by applying appropriate management practices, help to maintain and / or improve the good status of water including wastewater reuse and c) regions with geomorphological particularities or extreme climatic conditions. Does this mean that any big enterprise which has political power because of the jobs they “create” and somehow presents evidence of “good management” will be cleared from these charges? Or even, any inventive politician able to characterize his election area as “geomorphologically particular” will he be able to exclude it from the charges?

5) Only outrageous can we characterize one other provision under which consumers are to pay for pollution of water bodies, even if they did not contribute to it (clause d of paragraph 2 of Art. 5 !!!) and even though this damage is never restored? It would be useful here to have an official answer by the Ministry on how many and which of the recorded cases of water pollution have been restored and who paid for it so far.

6) More generally is it logical from the very definition of this fee to allow for such an uneven burden of the citizens who have the misfortune to live in hydrologically deprived areas and have no competence on the water management in the problematic zone?

C. The “resource cost” is defined as “the economic evaluation of alternative uses of water” which is necessary if the Water System is used in excess of the rate of its natural replenishment.”

This new cost definition reminds us of Chile. There the large copper operators, who can afford to pay more, use water from local springs and rivers while residents end up drinking desalinated seawater, since only such is available at lower prices. Must we henceforth pay in the form of “resource cost” the difference of profit in order to prevent our water being used in another way which results in greater economic benefit?

A large industrial unit of water bottling for example which uses the ground water beyond the rate of natural replenishment will it just pay the “resource cost” and continue making profit while destroying the aqueous stock? How is this consistent with the assumed target of “rational use”?

Finally it is worth noting that from this new tariff calculation method are excluded all water services for energy use (no. 2 par.2.a of RM) and of course it is obvious why when one takes a look at how the energy sector operates in our country.

It is clear to everyone that the above provisions are aimed at nothing other than to give plausible excuses for increasing the price of water in perpetuity, in a similar manner as the electricity bills were doubled by the notorious “regulated charges”.

The flimsy argument that the price increase will lead to savings and rational use, in a miraculous way, is a gross misrepresentation of the economic reality since the ones with the economic capacity will comfortably continue paying their excessive consumption, while those who are economically weaker will have to measure their water consumption with the water dropper.

It is another form of indirect taxation, which severely threatens the human right to access to water and sanitation as it was defined by the UN.

Finally, the logic of full cost recovery is directly contrary to the nature of a public service, the nature of the water companies in Greece which is still valid and protected by the Constitution. Any profit, beyond a reasonable one for the continuation of the operation of the enterprises, which in favor of the public interest, must be reinvested for the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure and networks, is simply immoral and imposed on us who have no other option to have access to the most fundamental resource.

For all these reasons, we are completely opposed to the conversion of the common good of water to a product and we therefore ask for the complete withdrawal of the document under “consultation”.

SAVEGREEKWATER, Initiative for the non privatization of water in Greece

(Note: this text was sent to the Ministry of Environment and as a press release to the media in Greece)

COSIGNING ORGANIZATIONS

Participatory Unifying Movement of Employees & Retirees ofr a public EYDAP in the service of society

Employees Union EYATH (Thessaloniki Water Company)

Naturefriends Greece

Radical Ecology Network

Citizens’ Initiative for the Abolition of the Superfund of the grabbing of Public Property

SOSte to nero, Coordinating Group of Citizens and Organizations, Thessaloniki

Water Warriors, Thessaloniki

Open Solidarity Comittee  of Tinos island

ECO.POLIS Haidari,Athens

PERI.POL.O. Mani (Enviromental and Cultural Group of Mani)

Athens Initiative for a self organized field at Hellenikon

 Cholargos – Papagos Citizens Network

The recommendations of a commission set up to draft the constitutional amendment were approved by 65 votes, with the remaining 25 members either abstaining or not being present. The proposal thus reached the two-thirds necessary to kick of the process of including the right to water in the Constitution.

The text proposed by the Commission, and approved on Tuesday 12 July, states that drinking water ‘should not be treated as a commodity’  and defines drinking water provision as a ‘non-profit public service’.

The wording should protect water services for citizens from any future liberalisation initiated by the European Commission. It marks a big success for the trade unions and NGOs which have campaigned, both in Slovenian and across Europe, for the recognition of water as a human right that must be protected from privatisation.

The Right2Water campaign, initiated by EPSU, became the first successful European Citizens’ Initiative in 2013 when it submitted 1.9 million signatures in favour of guaranteed water and sanitation across Europe and against the liberalisation of water services. Slovenian surpassed the national threshold for signatures several times over. This widespread support for the right to water in Slovenia has now borne fruit with water rights set to be enshrined in the national constitution.

As John Locke, one of the Enlightenment founders, so our initiative believes that “the actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts”. After addressing this quote to those in power as well as to those who should control them, we consider it our duty that one of our “actions” should be to inform our fellow citizens.

In an effort to pierce through the uproar of misleading screaming voices and shifting of focus which constitute nowadays the greek “public sphere”, with this press release, we attempt to investigate the consequences of the to-be-approved multi bill, on the Greek water services since EYATH and EYDAP are both mentioned in an article in appendix D of the bill which establishes, among others, a “Super-Fund”, entitled “Hellenic Company of Assets and Participations S.A. (HCAP).

In the draft of the bill (Article 198), EYATH and EYDAP appear among those publicly controlled companies which will be transferred in their entirety to EDHS (“Company of Public Paticipations S.A.”) within “a next period of time”, with EDHS being founded at the same bill and described as one of the subsidiaries of the new “Super- Fund”.

After the bill was uploaded to the Hellenic Parliament’s official website, there have been reports and leaks that the two companies have been omitted by the Ministry of Finance due to reactions. However, according to the same reports, there is no assurance or commitment that they will not be transferred to the Super-Fund at “a next period of time”. If the companies do get transferred to EDHS either via the current bill or via a future one, the consequences will be, the following:

1. The two companies will cease to be public utility agencies with the objective of providing uninterrupted and quality services of water and sanitation to the citizens of Athens and Thessaloniki. They will be instrumentalized in a contradictory to their scope way, since they will become by law simple “assets” in EDHS’ portfolio and will serve the Super- Fund’s “specific scope”, as it is mentioned in article 185 para. 1: “The Company manages and leverages its assets in order to: a) contribute resources to implement the investment policy of the country and to proceed to investments that contribute to the enhancement of the development of the Greek economy and b) contribute to the fulfillment of financial obligations of the Greek Republic under Law 4336/2015 (a 94).
2. The two companies will be privatized in violation of the Constitution, as judged by the decision of the State Council session 1906/2014 regarding EYDAP, since all their assets and their subsidiaries are to be transferred to the Super – Fund which, as mentioned in Article 184 para. 4, “does not belong to the public or broader public sector, in the way that each is defined.”
3. Management and administration of the two companies will be controlled, in substance and form, by the creditors, taking into account that: a) the Supervisory Board of the Super Fund consists of 5 members two of which are appointed by the creditors (with the consent of the Minister of Finance) and three from the Greek government (with the consent of the creditors) and that b) between the borrower Greek State and the creditors, there is no equal footing since the latter may impose what they want, as it has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past.
4. If and when EDHS is granted with the right of allotment and modification of the concessions that are relevant to EYDAP and EYATH, the public nature and the public control of the water services may be covertly reversed.

The transfer of the two companies to a subsidiary of the new Super – Fund which by its founding law aims to “enhance the value and improve the performance of its assets as well as to create revenue from them”, -as already witnessed in a series of similar ventures in France, Germany, the US and elsewhere-, will result in:

• Further commercialization of the common of water
• Increase of tariffs and neglect of investments in infrastructure and networks
• Increase in the number of citizens who might end up in risk of losing their human right to access to water and sanitation as this was established by the UN on 3/8/2010 (A / RES / 64/292)
• The loss of control on the decision making regarding the country’s water policies and planning-taking into account the strategic importance and expertise of the two largest water companies in the country-.
• The installment of opaque concession contracts, as it has been already the case in Berlin and elsewhere, at the expense of the public interest, as these contracts often contain terms such as profits guarantees etc.

Furthermore, and more essentially, any agreement between the Greek government and its creditors to include EYDAP S.A. and EYATh S.A. in the new Super-Fund will constitute by both parties, a scandalous breach of the democratically expressed will of the people as this has been recorded at the Thessaloniki referendum on the 18^th of May 2014 (where 98,03% of Thessalonians voted against the privatization of EYATh) but also after the successful completion of the ECI right2water in our country and at European level,  demanding the adoption of the human right to water by the EU and the protection of water services from liberalization. (During the procedure the official signatures by Greek citizens surpassed 32.000, when the threshold was 16.000, while in Europe in overall the signatures were more than 1.800.000, when the threshold for a successful ECI is 1.000.000.

Although the creditors and the alternating Greek governments have ignored the will of the Greek people in a way which nullifies the country’s system of government by consecutive breaching of their pre-election commitments and – in an emblematic expression of their hybris – by disrespecting the July 5^th 2015 referendum’s outcome, and despite the fact that the mass civil protests have been repeatedly ignored and were brutally repressed, we call those who are affected by the emerging new situation to stand by our side tomorrow Sunday, May 22 at 7.00 pm at Syntagma square. Not in the hope that our presence will change the already taken decisions of the power centers in the country and abroad, but because “the actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.”

SAVE GREEK WATER, Initiative for the non privatization of water in Greece

The stubborn and aggressive imposition of privatisation by Troika goes against the will of Greek citizens and represents a direct attack on democracy

Article by Satiko Kishimoto (TNI) and Olivier Hoedeman (CEO)

The requirement to sell off €50 billion in public assets is one of the most controversial aspects of the ‘agreement’ that Eurozone countries and the Troika forced on the Greek government during mid-July’s “night of shame”.

Details of exactly what Greece is required to privatise have now emerged with the leaking of the “Memorandum of Understanding for a three-year ESM programme” prepared by the Troika’s International Monetary Fund, European Commission and European Central Bank. [1] The leaked document lists 23 state assets, ranging from airports to service utilities, and presents precise steps and timelines for privatisation.

It comes as a shock that this list includes two large public water companies: Athens Water Supply & Sewerage S.A (EYDAP) and Thessaloniki Water Supply & Sewerage S.A. (EYATH), which provide drinking water for the country’s two biggest cities. The Troika had insisted on water privatisation in an earlier memorandum, but strong public opposition had blocked this proposal.

In June 2014 the Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, ruled that transferring a controlling stake in Athens’ public water utility EYDAP to private hands was unconstitutional because of the responsibility of the state to protect citizens’ fundamental right to health. [2] The new Memorandum foresees the sale of 11% of EYDAP shares, which seems minimal at face value, but given that 38.7% of EYDAP´s shares are already owned by private companies and individuals, it would leave 49.7% of the utility in private hands.

As for Thessaloniki, a non-binding referendum was held in May 2014, resulting in a 98% vote against water privatisation. This citizen-led initiative mobilised 218,002 voters and sent a crystal clear message rejecting the planned sale of 51% of EYATH shares to private investors (French water multinational Suez and Israel’s state-owned Merokot had shown interest). The leaked Memorandum now orders the liquidation of 23% of state-owned shares; knowing that another 26% are already in private hands, this would make the company 49% private.

In both cases, the Troika is demanding a selloff at the maximum level possible without directly conflicting with the court ruling. George Archontopoulos, the president of the Thessaloniki water workers’ union, fears that private investors “will be given management control as a present”. Therefore “whether it is 49% or 51%, we oppose further privatization of the company”, says Archontopoulos.

Rightly so because there are numerous examples of so-called public-private partnerships in which water multinationals own just under half of the shares but control the utility de facto. An ironic example is that of Germany´s capital Berlin, which sold off 49.9% of its water company (BWB) in 1999. Despite minority ownership, the private companies controlled management and were guaranteed high profits through secret contracts. In 2013, Berlin’s water was taken back in public hands, after almost 15 years of unpopular privatisation. As reported by The Guardian last week, the push by the German government and the EU institutions to privatise Greek water starkly contradicts the trend in the rest of Europe where cities are “remunicipalising” water after failed privatisation experiments. Germany’s water sector is overwhelmingly publicly-owned and publicly-managed and the German population enjoys high-quality water services provided by these public utilities.

Enough harm has been done already. The public water companies of Athens and Thessaloniki have been on the Athens stock exchange for nearly 15 years. Since then the number of employees in Thessaloniki decreased from 700 to 229. This is a very small number of water workers for a city over one million inhabitants and a 2,330-km piped network. In a comparable city like Amsterdam (1.3 million served population, 2,700 km network), the public water company employs 1,700 staff. Similar cuts have taken place in Athens.

The water utilities of both Athens and Thessaloniki are modern and well-functioning and there is no logical rationale for privatisation. Despite the severe social crisis in Greece, EYDAP and EYATH have been providing high quality, essential services at one of the most affordable tariffs in Europe. The companies are efficient and have healthy finances.

The Troika´s insistence on privatisation is driven by misguided ideology. For one, the sale of the water utilities shares will yield insignificant earnings when considering the big picture.

Worse, handing control over essential services to profit-driven multinationals presents serious risks for the most vulnerable among Greece’s crisis-hit population. The stubborn and aggressive imposition of privatisation goes against the will of Greek citizens and represents a direct attack on democracy. It is scandalous that the European Commission, one of the three institutions forming the Troika, ignores once again its EU treaty obligation to remain neutral when it comes to ownership of water services.[3]

[1] The document is available via the website of German Green MEP Sven Giegold: Greece Memorandum of Understanding for a three year ESM programme https://www.sven-giegold.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MoU-draft-11-August.pdf
ANNEXES 1 HRDAF Asset Development Plan 30 July 2015 https://www.sven-giegold.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Privatisation-Programme.pdf
HRDAF Government Pending Actions 30 July 2015 https://www.sven-giegold.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Government-Pending-Actions-final.pdf
The list of privatisation projects is in the first annex.

[2] The ruling happened after 27.3 % of the shares were had been transferred to the privatisation fund HRADF in January 2014, to be sold to private investors. The court blocked the planned transfer of another 34.03% to HRADF.

[3]  ¨EU Commission forces crisis-hit countries to privatise water ¨, October 17th 2012; https://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2012/eu-commission-forces-crisis-hit-countries-privatise-water

To: President of Democracy Mr. Karolos Papoulias

Notification: media

Athens, July 29, 2014

Dear Mr. President

Only a few days have passed since the 40th Anniversary Restoration of Democracy. In your message, as posted on the official website of the Presidency of the Republic, among other things stated is that: “The crisis brought a decline in Democracy and this is perhaps the most dramatic side effect of the economic adventure. The quality of parliamentarism, the debate between the parties, the political dialogue, the way the executive power made the decisions, all were seriously injured ”

We think it will be difficult to find in our country dissenters with your observation. Thus, whilst the parliamentary side of our Democracy declined, countless were the examples where the task of defending its essence was undertaken by initiatives, citizens’ groups and individuals.

We would like to draw once again your attention to the referendum on the non-privatization of Thessaloniki Water and Sewerage Company (EYATh) which was held on the same day as the recent municipal elections. In it, 218.002 Thessalonians, who participated in this “informal”, according to the government, referendum, expressed in a percentage of 98,04% their will that they do not want their city’s water to be privatized. Just one day before, the government tried to block the execution of this process, fortunately without success. As said that day, to our initiative, by the constitutional expert and now MEP Mr. Katrougalos, “the prohibition of the use of voter lists that was attempted was unconstitutional.” According to Professor of Constitutional Law, it “violated Article 102 of the Constitution which recognizes the competence of local authorities on local affairs including the conducting of referenda in accordance with the law ” Kallikratis “. Apart from that the ban infringes freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and the free and genuine expression of popular will that is protected in Article 52 of the Constitution. ”

Allow us, please, to consider the massive participation in this referendum, a supreme achievement for our otherwise declining Democracy, which showed that Greek citizens are not only entitled but are also willing to be asked questions relating to the public interest of their city.

In your message you also stated that: “Personally, I received several times criticism for the signatures I put. The Constitution clearly defines the responsibilities of the President of Democracy and it was my decision to respect the Constitution, which has suffered much in recent years, and to not violate the institutional order, causing political impressions or political crisis, only to avoid the political costs ”

Since it falls into your responsibilities and in accordance with your decision to respect the Constitution, we invite you, before the end of your mandate to promote within your power, the issue of local referendums which are provided by the existing legislation (Article 216 of Law. 3463/2006 – Code on Municipalities – in conjunction with Article 225 of Law. 3852/2010), an action which may not completely reverse the decline of Democracy, but it can certainly be a bulwark against its further contraction.

To conclude, you said that “We will find the solution on our own and we will only find it through major reforms and radical structural changes, which will help to remove the causes of the fiscal derailment.”

We agree with this general statement. Therefore, since one of the main causes of the financial derailment is the absence of the exercise of social control in the actions of elected representatives, we hope you will agree that the implementation of local referendums would be a good start to achieve someday the true essence of democracy which is non other than the, as much as possible, more direct participation of citizens in decision-making.

Sincerely

The members of the Initiative for the non privatization of water in Greece, SAVEGREEKWATER:

…

(In the letter submitted to the Presidency of Democracy that got an official file number, here followed the names, signatures and contact information of our members which are not published online for privacy reasons)

The Citizens’ Union for Water (comprised of municipal water and sewage cooperatives operating in the Thessaloniki area, citizens groups for the non-privatization of water services and EYATh personnel) is one of the groups that took part in the HRADF Tender for the selling of the majority of the EYATh shares. They have then been thrown out of the procedure without any explanation and therefore appealed to the Court and asked (through an injunction procedure) that HRADF be ordered to provide all documentation relative to the above Tender’s procedure.

The Court dismissed the excuses of HRADF and decided that the applicants have a legitimate interest in their request.

The story up to now:

1. On 16 May 2013 the Union submitted all documents necessary for its participation in the above Tender: such documentation covered: the financial basis of the Union based on the criteria specified in the Tender, its legal suitability and also technical qualification data.
2. On 31 May 2013 HRADF dismissed the Union’s application without clarifying the specific requirement(s) the Union did not (apparently) satisfy.
3. On 4 June 2013 the Union submitted a complaint requesting the annulment of the Decision above also asking HRADF to display and provide copies of the following documents:

• A copy of the Board Meeting minutes when the above decision has been taken.
• Copies of the documentation submitted by all other participants during same tender.
• All documents through which HRADF has requested additional data and/or clarifications from the Tender participants and the documents submitted according to these by the other participants.

HRADF refused to provide anything.
The Union obtained an order by the local District Attorney that HRADF provide such documents as had been asked but still HRADF refused to comply.
Then the Union submitted to the (competent) Athens Court a petition asking That HRADF be obliged to comply; the Court issued decision 736/2014 thus creating a precedent against HRADF’s secretive procedures.

Following the denial of the Thessaloniki citizens (through the referendum of 18 May 2014) for the privatization of the local water company and the Council’s of State decision against the privatization of public water companies, the decision of the Athens Court is the third Greek victory in our fight for water.
And as this collective fight continues, more will follow …