Τhe circular of prohibition of the local referendum organized by 11 Municipalities of Thessaloniki on the issue of privatization of EYATH by minister of Interior Mr. Michelakis just one day before the process is a document politically & legally exposed.

Politically, because just one day before the local elections that elect representatives of local communities , the government intervenes in a democratic process which was decided by those same local and democratically elected Mayors several months ago and organized with the support of civil society and many collectives in Greece and Europe .

Legally because the process of the referendum does not impede the elections procedure in any way and it would be perfectly legal and conforming to European law if the government had not demonstrated scandalous , suspicious and undemocratic “negligence” in the drafting and signing of the residential Decree which would implement the European legislation on local referenda provided by ” Kallikratis “ law which was voted years ago.

Even more unacceptable is bullying on arresting those who set up polls or use the electoral roll even outside the polling station !!!

As, the constitutional expert Mr Katrougalos stated, when asked by our initiative, the ban of the use of voter lists is unconstitutional. According to the Professor of Constitutional Law, any ban of the procedure is in violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution that recognizes the competence of local authorities on local affairs among which are the referenda in accordance with the law ” Kallikratis “. Apart from that the ban infringes the freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and the free and genuine expression of peoples’ will, that is protected in Article 52 of the Constitution.

We can understand Mr. Michelaki’s , the government’s and especially their friends’(who are used to install and depose governments in Europe behind closed doors ) difficulty to understand and respect the will of the citizens of Thessaloniki, but they should keep calm. This move exposes Mr Michelakis & the government and reveals the true feelings of their political class regarding the effective participation of citizens in decision- making.

The protection of democracy and the expression of the will of all citizens is not negotiable and it is our right and our obligation to preserve it from interpretations and approaches of governments that come & go. The era of “we decide & command ” is long gone. (note for foreign readers: phrase used by greek junta 1967-1974)

All over Europe for which Mr Michelakis claims to care for, local and national referenda are wide & well supported by authorities.

In a national referendum on water, invoked by signatures of citizens, in Italy on June 12 and June 13 of 2011, the Italian people voted against privatization in an overwhelming percentage of 95.4 % .

In 2004, the city and the Land of Hamburg decided, after a successful local referendum , the adoption of a law according to which the water services should be only in public hands .

Berlin residents demanded a referendum in which an overwhelming majority voted in favor of the disclosure of the concession contract that was signed to privatize the minority stocks of the water company of Berlin, that revealed there was a secret written clause of guaranteed large profits and recently the service was fully remunicipalized with very high economic cost for the residents.

And of course there are examples of governments which respect even polls and the people’s sense of right and act accordingly.

In 2004, the Netherlands passed a law that prevents any private company from providing services to the public drinking water .Even in Lithuania, the responsible Minister recently announced that it is preparing legislation so that only municipalities can provide water.

Even in our case , international pressure forced the European Commission to exclude water services from the concessions directive. Olli Rehn, has even stated that privatization in Greece is the Greek government’s decision and not one of its creditors and that he agrees to exclude water services from the troika deals. It is obvious that the international pressure has led to the creation of the political moment, in which a government could effectively exclude water services from privatizations, instead of creating a “terror climate” against the expression of the citizens of Thessaloniki.

It is, at least, “unfortunate ” while we are in the process of local, regional and European elections , that the government is showing disrespect towards the need for expression of citizens undermining in this way the core meaning of democracy .

At any rate, we offer to Mr Michelakis and his government, a glass of water from the public taps of EYATH and we wish to them “good digestion”, “swallowing” the bad news .Because despite the threats of arrests, the referendum is still on.

See you at the ballots…

SAVEGREEWATER Initiative for the non privatization of water in Greece

(Note: Despite the short time till tomorrow this press release is circulated for cosigning. Those organizations who wish to support it, can send an email to [email protected])

 Many thanks for the immediate co signatures the following organizations

Αλληλεγγύη στα Δυτικά. Κίνηση κοινωνικής αλληλεγγύης του Αιγάλεω

Ιατρείο Κοινωνικής Αλληλεγγύης Περιστερίου

Ελεύθερη Λαϊκή Αντιστασιακή Συσπείρωση Ε.Λ.Λ.Α.Σ.

Κίνηση Πολιτών Επανομής

Παρατήριο Μεταλλευτικών Δραστηριοτήτων 

«ΒΙΟΖΩ» – Πανελλήνια Ένωση Καταναλωτών ., «ΒΙΟ-ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΕΣ ΓΙΑ ΠΟΙΟΤΙΚΗ ΖΩΗ»

Αυτοδιαχειριζόμενος Αγρος στο ΕλληνικόΠεριβαλλοντικός Πολιτιστικός Σύλλογος Μάνης

Ενότητα Σαρωνικού

European water Movement EWM

Aquattac,

Agua e de todos

Forum Italiano dei Movimenti per l’Acqua

CeVI – Centro di Volontariato Internazionale

WIB,Wasser in Bürgerhand

Berliner Wassertisch

Eau Secours 34

CRAUE (Coordination Rhône Méditerranée des Associations des Usagers de l’Eau)

Public Water Movement of Turin

Fédération Cgt des services Publics

Alta Amazonia Celendin, Peru

Mouvement National de Lutte pour l’Environnement

Association des Usagers de l’ Eau  des Pyrénées Orientales

ATTAC France

The threat of privatization of the most significant of the common goods, that of water, unites more and more people in actions aiming at preventing this disastrous in terms of public interest development . This time it is the artists who take a stand and respond to the call of SAVEGREEWATER, the initiative for the non- privatization of water in Greece , to express in public their opinion and strengthen in their own way its defense.

Glykeria as an artist, has accompanied with her songs and the sensitivity that distinguishes her our life and dreams for many years. Discreet, yet deeply politicized,  she could not possibly remain indifferent to the major issue of the forthcoming privatization of water in our country and responded immediately to our call , to add her unique voice to the voices of all those who have signed either the European Citizens’ Initiative right2water or the still ongoing signature collection via avaaz of a letter which is addressed to the Government and the Troika, a letter requesting revocation of this irrational and undemocratic policy.

(photo republished from EFSYN)   français    italiano

An answer to Diane D’Arras

Senior Executive Vice President Water Western Europe

Suez Environnement

Dear Diane,

Let us please clarify that what follows is based on what you said and answered during your recent Press Conference in Thessaloniki, as it has been reported by the journalists and media that were present.

Despite the democratic traditions of your home country and in stark contrast to your saying that Suez will definitely take into account the citizens’ public feeling and vision, the fact that no invitation was provisioned for interested citizens and not all interested journalists were invited, can only be judged negatively. It also stood in contrast to your invitation, on behalf of Suez, to elected members of the city council to become Members in the company’s new BoD. One of those present could have asked a clarifying question as to what rights such a membership would mean apart from providing a false feeling of public participation and an implication of transparency. Unfortunately no such question was posed by the reporters in the room, some of which are in the payroll of your partner in the TAIPED (HRADF) tender for the acquisition of the 51% shares  of Thessaloniki water Company (EYATH).

Reading your resume we were informed that in 1993 you took a managerial position and then a promotion in the Aguas Argentinas (Buenos Aires) which was privatized in 1993 in the midst of the economic crisis in Argentina and remunicipallized in 2006. Argentina, as you note in your CV,  was for you “a great experience providing the opportunity to discover other ways of thinking, professionally and personally“.

You mentioned that the price of water shall be set by an independent regulatory authority. The Greek WRA is nothing more than the Special Secretariat for Water (an old service within the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change) that has hastily been upgraded to the status of an independent Authority just after the announcement of the imminent privatization of EYDAP (Athens water company) and EYATH. Such a service may remind you of its respective one in Argentina which as per the report of Alcázar, L.; Abdala, A.; Shirley, M Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved 2008-04-16 the local WRA “was lacking in experience as it was created during the privatization” and its “decisions were not taken into consideration”. The fact that AA was in 1997, while the crisis raged in the country, granted a concession contract with very generous terms that authorized it to demand dollars at the old 1:1 exchange rate after the peso devaluation, despite the abysmal international market value of the former (Solanes, Miguel (2006) only underlines the local WRA efficiency and abilities. “Efficiency, Equity, and Liberalisation of Water Services in Buenos Aires, Argentina”. Industry, Services & Trade (OECD).

On top, in 2010 ICSID awarded that the Argentina Government decision, disallowing raises in water prices when the value of the ARS was precipitating, wronged private water operators and ordered a compensation. The privates declared that they will go after a USD 1,2 billion compensation. Eventually,  are the decisions of the regulatory authorities concerning  the price of water but also the keeping of contractual obligations or other issues “respected“, as you stated in Thessaloniki, or can their existence, in several cases, become just a bureaucratic alibi  facilitating corruption and being useful for the legalization of private monopolies under the consent of international organizations such as those that demand privatization in the first place?(1)

You set as one of Suez’ s main priorities in Thessaloniki the protection of the environment and – among others – the “reintroduction of quality in the Thermaikos Bay”. We sincerely hope so, as in Chile, Suez has been forced to pay a compensation of USD 5 billion for the “unpleasant odors” emitted from its waste water treatment plants. (research by the PSIRU team of the University of Greenwich).

Your pleasant promise for annual investments of € 25 and up to € 50 million on infrastructure that will remain property of ΕΥΑΤΗ Infrastructure S.A. definitely sets Suez among the foremost non-profit charity organizations worldwide, as the net profits of ΕΥΑΤΗ amount to ca € 18 million. Unless, of course, the price for water is somehow going to be “readjusted” so as to cover for the investments and the reasonable profit of the shareholders-investors, in which case the investments will have been paid by the good and, you shall hope, overgenerous citizens of Thessaloniki.

As a report (2009 PSIRU of the University of Greenwich) stated, water infrastructure investments in France are subsidized mainly by the public sector whereas only 12% on the average is paid by private water companies. How come important investments that have not been realized in France will be realized in Greece?

Could this be the reason why Paris, Brest, Grenoble,  Cherbourg,  Varages, Durance-Luberon, Castres retook water services under municipal control and why others (Toulouse, Ile-de-France, Montbeliard, Bordeaux, Lille) are eager to follow in the same path?

But even if such investments are to be made how is Suez going to pay for them?

The SUEZ profile shows liabilities amounting to € 19.777 million with assets of € 6.859 million. As assets include € 3.264 of goodwill while another € 4.060 million amount to other intangibles, then SUEZ turns negative (€ -465 million). For the last four years SUEZ shows only losses: € 2.281 million on 2009, € 1.158 million on 2010, € 1.205 million on 2011 and € 1.314 million on 2012. (2)

On the other hand, “small” ΕΥΑΤΗ (whose share price is overrated, as you stated), showed in 2012: profits of € 24 million euro (€ 18 million net), ready cash of € 33 million (today € 50 million according to latest information), and equity capital € 135 million on an annual income of € 74 million. Its stock market value is 220 million euro (according to the annual financial report of 2012).

Perhaps one should leave the theories about better management by the private sector aside until at least this picture is reversed.

You stated that SUEZ acquiring the EYATH shares will lead to 4.000 (!) new job opportunities, in a work environment which, for the last three years, has been pulverizing job positions in a terrifying pace and which shows no sign of changing in the near future.  From the date EYATH stopped being a public service and turned to an S.A. (with SUEZ, later, obtaining in 2006 5,46% of its shares) its personnel has been reduced from ca 700 to 235 today as job positions were not replenished after retirement. By which viable investment plan and organization chart will recruitment of this order be needed to operate EYATH given the fixed number of “clients” and if you maintain the price per cubic meter at current levels? (In any case, the company at present, has only seven drivers for its 80 vehicles and employs only eleven plumbers on a network of some 2.330 km length and some 510.000 customers/hydrometers). As for prices, since 2001 there have been increases almost threefold. Still, you wondered whether the current water price of ΕΥAΤΗ can keep the company viable.

The referendum, you said, “may be important yet on the other hand, it is a political action”. Indeed. Such a referendum led to the citizens of Berlin being informed of the secret terms included in the concession contract by which their municipal water company had been given to Veolia and RWE and tariffs kept increasing; it was through this political action that these terms were made public and then the citizens started to struggle in order to reclaim the water service for the public sector. It was again such a referendum in Italy when 95,4% voted against the privatization of water services and the idea of profit out of water and as we say in Greece for our neighbors, since Greeks and Italians are “una faccia, una razza” it can definitely be such a referendum that will voice the will of the Greek people, the majority of whom are against the privatization of the monopoly of water. (3)

You talked about misunderstandings; you said that “water is not going to be privatized, we will just accomplish a public-private partnership”. We cannot feel at ease: it was such a partnership in Berlin that led to ever increasing water prices and loss of social control.

You said that “the worst thing for us is to be in a country that does not respect the law”. We agree. We would like therefore to inform you, in case you don’t know, that, according to Eleytherotypia mewspaper (4) , there is an ongoing investigation ordered by the Thessaloniki District Attorney for Corruption Argyris Demopoulos, concerning amounts of more than € 100 million,  part of which is coming from the EU Cohesion Fund, for projects that run till 2016 that, if are not to be paid for by the investor, are to be illegally spent for the profit of a private company (Greece has been penalized in the past for similar reasons), on the condition that  privatization occurs before that date. As per the report, an important parameter of the investigation is that HRADF is to produce the draft of the concession contract , to investigate exactly what is contained therein, in order to correlate the use of said infrastructure to the terms agreed.

Of course there is still pending the decision of the Council of State on the legality of the transfer of the ΕΥΑΤΗ shares to HRADF. What we as citizens (and presumably you as well) find absolutely unacceptable, is cases where the Constitution and the decisions of Supreme Courts  are not respected by all parts.

We assume that your personal presence in Thessaloniki despite your high position of Vice President, is indicative of the great interest of the company you represent to acquire EYATH as “springboard” for the Balkan market. This we definitely believe is so. Still we would advise you to keep in mind that the remunicipalization trend is already on the way even in the Balkan area.(5)

Sincerely,

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

and

SOSTE TO NERO, EYATH Employees Union, Movement 136, Water Warriors

P.S. Times have changed since then, but we’d like to remind you of a historical fact: During the fire that destroyed Thessaloniki in 1917, the water supply company, one of French interests at the time, refused to distribute water as it needed it to supply the Entente forces then stationed in the area. (Article in newspaper efsyn on 10/05/2013). By no means do we imply a similar behavior from the company you represent, to avoid misunderstandings.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

(1) OFWAT has repeatedly failed to prevent the private water corporations in the UK from making undue greater profit due to shortage of funds? And though it has managed to discover fraud committed by those same corporations, it has granted them a 25-year notification before the cancellation of their licenses – practically giving them eternal monopoly. Also according to 1997 report of the Cour des Comptes, the privatization system on which SUEZ and Veolia based their national dominance was suffering from systematic flaws. “The lack of supervising and control of the granted public organizations, worsened by the lack of transparency in this kind of administration, have led to abuse.” (excerpt from the research of the team PSIRU of the University of Greenwich).

(2) Information found in published financials of Suez Environment on Bloomberg:

https://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=SEV:FP

(3) As for the planned selling of ΕΥΑΘ, a 76% of the citizens is against. https://www.makthes.gr/news/reportage/115338/

(4) https://www.enet.gr/?i=issue.el.home&date=31/12/2013&id=407368

(5) The water in Sofia is in the process of being made public again via a local referendum. According to the vice president of the Committee for the commercial policy and the municipal property there are three reasons for which the contract with the company must be terminated: a) the conditions for the water leakages are not met, b) price of water is much higher than what was originally agreed upon and c) high expenditure of the corporation, i.e. for advisors ( 27 August 2013 | 08:14 | FOCUS News Agency)

In Hungary, the city of Peks made its water supply company public again in 2010, terminating the contract with a subsidiary of SUEZ; the city of Caposvar also made its water supply company public again. In Hungary, even in towns where the water supply has been privatized, the investments are funded by the central administration. (excerpt from the research of the team PSIRU of the University of Greenwich).

The article of ENET (Eleytherotypia) by Sakis Apostolakis (translation)

The new owners of EYATh will be receiving a dowry of more than € 100 million, paid by Greek taxpayers and the EU

Are Greece’s European Partners aware that the money they have deposited in the EU Cohesion Fund will be used by the Greek Government to subsidize private entrepreneurs?

The modernization of the computer systems of EYATh will cost some € 2 million and will be paid by the Greek taxpayers despite the fact that the company will soon be transferred to private ownership. It was inevitable that such a procedure would draw the attention of the District Attorney and is already under examination. But this case is dwarfed by a more recent procedure according to which the Greek Government will use more than € 100 million of taxpayers’ money and funds of the EU Cohesion Fund to construct or modernize Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructures on behalf of EYATh; the new (private) owners of the company will benefit from such without having paid a single cent towards their cost.

Today, only a few hours after celebrating Greece’s entry in the EU Presidency, one can only wonder whether all those who attended the party in Athens, and even more importantly the taxpayers in the rest of EU, are aware that their money is given for free to private prospectors. Not only did the Greek Government undertake to proceed with the construction of such infrastructures it also agreed to continue paying for these even after the transfer of the majority of the EYATh shares (and of course its management) to private prospectors.

The price to be paid by the future private owners of EYATh is some € 110 million, i.e. only a small fraction larger than the sums already mentioned. By paying this the new owners will get for free the use of such infrastructures which, among others, include upgrades in the Thessaloniki Biological Treatment Plant, already run by Joint Venture SUEZ-AKTOR (the future owners of EYATH) or other installations run by Castor SA (a subsidiary of AKTOR).

All facts above have already been made public through the webpage of SAPW. SAPW has already prepared the blueprints and issued an invitation to a public tender for such works. The contractor will be paid by SAPW using money given by the Greek State and subsidies of the EU Cohesion Fund. Such a procedure was normal in the past when EYATh was a public institution and even when the Greek State owned the majority of its shares. Now when EYATh is being turned over to the private such a procedure cannot be deemed acceptable.

The sum of € 100+ million is being spent as follows

€ 4,9 million are to be used for building and connection projects in the Biological Treatment Plant (run by castor SA, as has already been mentioned), another € 44 million will be used for the construction of a second branch to the main sewers lineage line, € 17,7 million has been used for building a Thermal Drying Sewage Treatment Unit, while the tender for the Building of an Extension to the Water Treatment Unit (€ 36,5 million) is still pending.

All the above will be to the benefit of the prospected private owners of EYATh. The Greek Government seems to be in a hurry to proceed with the transfer as soon as possible despite the fact that a Council of State Decision (issued on an Appeal against such transaction) orders the discontinuation of the procedure (the Decision has not been formally published yet).

One wonders whether the EU and the EU Cohesion Fund are willing to press the Greek Government towards stopping to subsidize private companies, especially as Greece (i.e. its taxpayers) have been penalized in the past for similar acts of its governments.

The Government of Greece in an attempt to diminish the market value of EYDAP, is ready to write off more than € 700 m of its, thus making it easier for the prospective buyers to acquire. At the same time part of the sums owed by several municipalities to EYDAP will be paid by the State; this way the citizens will have paid twice, as the sums that are to be covered through taxes have already been paid (to the municipalities) by those who received said water and sewerage services.

The CEO of EYDAP (Antonis Vartholomaios, who is apparently not concerned about his civil and penal liabilities) has already attempted to force the BoD cut down the sums owed by the Greek State to the Company but failed. Due to the resistance of several Board Members the issue will be referred to a Shareholders extraordinary Meeting. The Board Members that opposed said proposal were Bank and Union representatives as well as the TAIPED (Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund – HRADF) one. The CEO has been forced to convene another meeting to which he is probably going to submit a similar proposal. Meanwhile the Government put forth an act to be discussed and voted by the Parliament whereby all its debts to EYDAP from 1999 on will be written off.

Memoranda Obligations of the Greek State

According to L 4179/2013 the Greek State will have to pay all it owes to EYDAP and EYATh before the companies are transferred to private prospectors. Such debts to EYDAP (services as well as the State’s share in investments and maintenance of the company’s network) amount to ca € 1,05 billion. Of this € 350 m have already been approved by Shareholders’ Meetings and legally entered in the company’s ledgers as claims, while the State has never offered (nor could it of course) any objection for the rest.

However the Government is trying to pay only € 350 m and write off the rest. In this they are assisted by the company’s CEO, who, after having failed to force the Board to decide on this, is referring the issue to the shareholders. Currently the majority (61,33% of the shares) is owned by the Greek State through HRADF. This simply means that the debtor of a company will decide as to how much and when of its debt shall be paid, while HRADF, which has the duty to sell the company’s shares in the highest possible price, will agree to lower its value by at least € 700 m. Still HRADF’s representative in the company’s Board expressed some concerns and hasn’t yet agreed to this.

Municipality Debts

At the same time (through art 52 of L 4186/2013, which deals with Education issues!) municipality debts to EYDAP are fixed to € 160 m, while interest and penalties over € 200 m have been written off. Such amounts however have already been collected from citizen consumers by the municipalities (and spent for altogether different matters) but will now be paid by the State, that is through taxes raised from these same citizens.

Note from SAVEGREEKWATER: To better understand how exactly the Greek government deals with the debts of the public sector towards EYDAP please refer to these two legislative moves before the calling of the general assembly of stakeholders of the company.

• The government proceeded in offsetting debts between EYDAP and the public sector through an amendment tabled by the ministers of Finance, Infrastructure and Tourism in the bill to reorganize the Tourism Organism EOT (31/07/2013). They also provided the power to determin any eventual debts until 30 June 2013 by Joint Ministerial Decision. This decision refers to debts by the State to EYDAP for infrastructure, construction of water projects of public entities, construction and maintenance of flood protection works, etc., and non-tax debts of the company towards the government.

• A joint ministerial decision (26/9/2013) the Ministers of Interior and Finance was issued to regulate the debts of first and second degree of municipalities to water companies EYDAP and EYATH. (FEK 2410B prot.n. 38560). This regulation refers to debts till the end of July 2013, totaling 162.3 million euros (about 150 million to EYDAP and about 13 million to EYATH) and it will be free from fines. The sum will be paid by the central government and will be deducted from each local government that created it, from their future revenues of state grants of the years 2015-2020.

 PRESS RELEASE

Citizens Movement K136 (striving during the last two years against the privatization of the Thessaloniki Water Company – EYATh) and Citizens’ Union for Water ( CUW – a union of the Thessaloniki area Municipality Water Services, established with the assistance of K136 and having as its purpose the acquisition of the majority of EYATh shares) held a press-conference during which they explained their actions up to date as well as their plans for the future.

They explained the legal actions taken after CUW has been excluded from further proceeding in the public tender concerning the sale of EYATh’s shares

They informed the public as to the actions taken up to now by TAIPED 9the institution dealing with the sale of the Greek States private property and they argued that the statements made by TAIPED especially as to the public’s right to water could not be further from the truth

Finally they presented the actions K136 aims to take (locally as well as on a anational and international level) in order for the Greek water services no to be tirned over to private prospectors.

Speakers were Lazaros Angelou, representative of CUW, the environmentalist Dr. Kostas Nikolaou and Kostas marioglou, vice president of the EYATh Workers Union and a member of K136

 Issues to be taken into consideration:

Issue 1. As per art. 3 of L 3986/2011: “…TAIPED must serve the public interest”; despite this TAIPED excluded CUW from the public tender. CUW provided the only proposal that serves the public interest.

L 4092/2012 “PrivatizationProgram 2013-2016”

The Hellenic Parliament voted that the Greek State has to surrender all of its rights in a number of companies, organizations, institutions etc. This does not necessarily mean that all these have to be sold/given away to private prospectors as other forms of management are allowed and can prove preferable. CUW’s proposal in the EYATh public tender was the only one that led to the water and sewerage services being managed by the local municipalities and citizen unions. Such management would definitely work for the common good instead having profits as its main target.

Art.1 L 3986/2011: “TAIPED must strive for the best results, … taking into account market issues… and never hide anything from the contestants, the public or other competent authorities…” Despite this, TAIPED three times denied providing CUW the reasons why it has been thrown out of the public tender, which led to CUW applying to Justice in order for the Court to issue a decision forcing TAIPED to provide these (case is to be heard in Athens on 23rd September).

Issue 2. Recently TAIPED officials tried to reassure the public that there will be no danger from the alienation of only the management of water and sewerage services, since the infrastructure as well as the water sources will remain under state control. We all know that private management of water services led to a huge increase in prices in London, Berlin and Paris (to name only the most widely known international examples). We also know that all over Europe municipalities are trying to get water and sewerage services back under control having long suffered under the “advantages” of privatization.

They claim that the management of water and sewerage services requires a high level of know-how which the local municipalities are not able to offer. To prove this they use the financial results of small municipal water enterprises while making no mention of either EYATh or EYDAP (Athens) whose results are much better than those of Suez itself. Everyone able to make a simple addition can discern that with the price demanded by TAIPED the company can be bought by using its net profits during a period smaller than ten years. Mr. Athanasopoulos, chairman of TAIPED, stated: “It was the parliament’s decision, not TAIPED’s, to sell the EYATh shares. We can only advise as to the strategy to be followed. The Government decided that it cannot anymore act as a producer but that it will remain only as a controller and regulator. Still I say the Greek Government has never proved to be effective in such roles”

TAIPED also claims that the state or the municipalities cannot dispose of the capital needed for investments, despite EYATh having spent during the five year period from 2008 till 2012 € 87,9 m to this purpose. But they have still to disclose the investment program to be undertaken by whoever acquires the EYATh shares. And of course the TAIPED CEO (Giannis Emiris) is blatantly lying when he claims that privatization will bring the construction of the Central Sewer’s Second Branch (€ 44 m) and the enlargement of the Purification Installation (€ 36,5 m) as both of these prospects are already running under NSRF.

TAIPED also claims that the new owners of EYATh will not be able to raise the prices at will; Such, for the initial five year period, will be defined through a program to be included in the sale contract; Later these will be controlled by the Special Water Office of the Ministry for Environment, Energy and Climatic Change. They also claim that prices in the future will be lower.

Of course, last January, Athanasopoulos stated (speaking to the parliament); “We will not sale unless the price offered is higher that the provisional value of the total of all future inflows. Emiris added that …”prices for the initial five year period will be known beforehand. These will be determined on the basis of the price the investor (will) pay for buying water, his expenses and his investments plus a certain profit, otherwise there will be no motive for making any investments. We are certain that we will get the best price possible. Of course the price cannot be as high as € 80 m (profits over a 3 year period) as the investor only buys 50% of the company’s shares; most probably it will be something like half of it.”

According to what Athanasopoulos and Emiris said, and expecting that the buyers will invest some € 60 m, depreciated over the same 5-year period and expecting profits of 5%, the Greek public will lose (during same time frame) some € 218: € 179 m shall burden the consumers (based on an average increase of 60%) while the Greek state is going to lose some € 39 m of dividends and income tax. Of course EYATh disposes of some € 33 m in cash and is still owed some € 50 m (by the state and municipalities) of unpaid bills. Giving it to anyone for only € 25 m or so is nothing less than giving it for free.

The Finance Ministry ordained that reimbursement of costs (as it is stated in L 3199/2003) shall be taken into account for setting the price of water services. This reimbursement of costs has been calculated (by a University Team set up to this purpose by the Ministry for Environment, Energy and Climatic Change) at 86,58%, which leads to a further increase in the price of 13,42%.

 If the Government insists on selling EYATh the public interest will be served by it being transferred to local municipalities, or citizens’ initiatives or both. The state will collect the sums stated above and (after the initial five years) prices can decrease until they finally cover only the running costs of the enterprise on the basis of a non-profit management.

Issue 3. The great majority of the Thessaloniki inhabitants is against EYATh coming under private control. The Union of Municipalities of Central Macedonia has unanimously declared they stay against EYATh turning to a private enterprise. TheyalsoaskthatEYAThbegiventothemsothattheymanageittothebenefitofthepeopleofThessalonikiandpublicwelfare.

Municipalities who are serviced by EYATh have also declared that they stand for a public referendum in order for the citizens of the area to decide themselves what they want EYATh to become.

The Union of EYATh workers established a citizens’ initiative (named SOS for Water SOS4W). K136 and CUW have been from the start members of this initiative and act in concert with it against the privatization process. “We (SOS4W) say that if the Greek State did not want to have anything to do with water services anymore (and EYATh in particular) they should first have asked the municipalities to take these over. We have already talked that most of the cost for investment during the years to come has been covered by NSRF. We stand together with the municipalities against the privatization of water services and ask for this referendum to be taken. Is anyone afraid of the people expressing their opinion?”

Issue 4 The government (especially through private owned media) claims that transferring the majority of the shares of EYATh has been forced upon them by the Troika (IMF, ECB, EC) and therefore they have no saying on it. Of course no reaction of the government has been recorded yet to commissioner Barnier’s declaration that (quoted) “At no point has the Commission proposed to force or even encourage privatisation of public services such as water. The decision on how to run a public service is in Member States’ hands, and their local authorities. And it will remain that way. …That is why the best solution now appears to be to remove water from the scope of the concessions directive. It is our duty to take into account the concerns expressed by so many citizens.”…

The Greek government also elected to take into account neither the reaction of European citizens against the privatization of water services (more than 1,5 signatures gathered by the relevant ECI) nor the response of commissioner Rehn to EMPs Nikos Houndis and Nikos Chrysogelos that (quoted): … that “the management of water resources is the responsibility of the Member States, so for this reason the commission has taken neutral position on the issue of public or private ownership of water resources, in accordance with Article 345 TFEU, recognizing, at the same time, that “water is a public good which is vital for citizens…. The assets included in the privatization program for the countries of the program is the result of decisions by national authorities alone. The discussions in the adjustment program focus on general funding needs of the program,including privatization revenues from the sale of state assets to investors, but the set up of the privatization program and the selection of assets is the sole responsibility of the Member States “.

Therefore we once more ask the Greek Government to clarify its position vs the above statements in order to withdraw EYATh from its privatization program.

Issue 5 A letter signed by 130 personalities in Greece and abroad as well as 50 EMPs from 18 different countries asks that private prospectors withdraw their offers concerning EYATh in order for the citizens of Thessaloniki to decide themselves what the future of the company shall be. This is also what we ask: the water of Thessaloniki shall be managed by this city’s inhabitants and same shall be done everywhere else in Europe and the world. K136 will continue fighting alongside the European and other citizens’ movements against the privatization of water resources.

 We know that the laws and regulations of the European Union forbid monopolies. Therefore we wonder what good does one get if a state monopoly is given to private prospectors. We insist and will never stop to insist that the best way is for non-profit oriented co-operatives to take over the management of water and sewerage. We do wonder how even the most innocent, but by definition profit oriented, private prospector can prove better than these.

Movement 136 accuses TAIPED for a series of irregularities in the process of opening envelopes of tender and intends to take legal action to stop the tender for the sale of EYATh. According to the representative Lazarus Angel, the statutory process was not followed. ” TAIPED did not call us, as it was required, in the opening of the envelopes of tenders, and refuses to give us information about the process, while refusing to give us even the record of decision blocking us from the competition.” As an argument, adds L. Angel, TAIPED argues that it is not obliged to provide information about the competition, because it’s a private company. This is what TAIPED supports in a four-page letter sent in response to the complaint lodged by Movement 136 in the decision to exclude us, says L. Angel. “But they do not give us the information we request to see why we were excluded and why other companies passed to the next stage of the competition,” he says. Movement 136 has requested the assistance of the public prosecutor, who sent a letter to TAIPED with Movement 136’s request and asks to take care at their discretion. But yet no response.

Recourse

“They behave like managing their own property. May TAIPED be a private company, but EYATh is a public property. It is a state company. And TAIPED must ensure the public interest, “said L. Angel. Furthermore he notes that he intends to use the information requested by the Movement 136 from TAIPED to the appeal which is about to fill in for the annulment of the tender for the privatization of EYATh. And TAIPED seems to try to stall so that they might delay the filing of the appeal, and by that to go ahead the competition and achieve the sale of EYATh, contrary to the will of the municipalities of Thessaloniki, who have decide to hold a referendum on the issue.

source: ΕΝΕΤ

[box] Over 130 civil society organisations, trade unions and individuals from Greece, Europe and around the world have teamed up with 50 Members of the European Parliament to send a letter to the bidders of the public water company in Thessaloniki urging them to drop their bid.[/box]

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

The group has sent letters to companies including the French multinational Suez Environnement, Greek groups Aktor S.A and Terna Energy S.A as well as the Israeli groups Mekorot and Arison Investment concerning their reported bids for EYATH, the Thessaloniki Water and Sewage Company.

Under conditions imposed by the Troika to reduce Greece’s debt, EYATH has been put up for sale by the Greek government against the peoples’ wish. The citizens of the city, the workers as well as the municipalities of Thessaloniki oppose the sale of their public water and have set up different campaigns to stop this privatization.

“While in Greece there is no precedent, the international experience has shown that the privatisation of water has often resulted in the skyrocketing of prices and in some cases in the deterioration of water quality. Although the trend in Europe is towards remunicipalization of our water systems, we are being forced to go the opposite way here,” says Maria Kanellopoulou of initiative Save Greek Water. “EYATH is the first case of water privatization that we need to stop to make sure it does not spread to the rest of Greece,” she added. 

“Companies involved in water privatization have often found their reputations tarnished, their risks increased and their profits limited. The companies aiming to buy EYATH would be clearly basing their business model on opportunism and should take this as a warning sign of the difficulties to come,” said George Archontopoulos from the EYATH Workers Union.

“Last week the Eldorado Gold Corporation announced the suspension of production at the Halkidiki goldmine in Greece. This is another example of a company which is not wanted in Greece and which the people are prepared to fight against to stop the exploitation of one of their common resources. The residents have managed to stall the mine’s activities by a durable and dynamic resistance. This is the same situation we see for the protection of public water and EYATH in Thessaloniki,“ said Gabriella Zanzanaini, Director of European Affairs for Food & Water Europe.

“50 MEPs from the Conservatives, the Popular Party, the Liberals, the Greens, the Socialists and the Left from 18 countries cosigned the letter. This massive participation shows that international and local opposition to the sale of water services will pose a toll over any company that takes part in these privatizations. Companies should make a profit from the trade of private goods, not from acquiring market control over public goods. The European Parliament is sending a clear warning to the Greek government that the privatization of water is neither welcomed nor helping Greece to exit the crisis,” said Kriton Arsenis, Greek MEP, who helped to circulate the letter in the European Parliament.

The groups support keeping the profitable water company in public ownership, where real participation of citizens and workers in the management of water can happen. Considering the current European context where over 1, 600 000 citizens have signed the European Citizens Initiative to protect the right to water and the European Commission’s recent removal of water services from the controversial Concessions Directive, these companies would be going against the tide if they push forward on their bid for EYATH. 

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

THE LETTER

We do not want you in Thessaloniki. Please withdraw your bid.

To the companies bidding for EYATH, the Thessaloniki Water and Sewage Company

The press has reported that your company is participating in a bid for Eyath, the Thessaloniki Water and Sewage Company. We ask you to withdraw your bid.

You will be aware that the privatisation of Eyath is opposed by the citizens of the city, by the workers as well as by the municipalities of Thessaloniki. The only reason that this privatisation is going ahead is because it is imposed by the Greek government, itself under pressure from the Troika to reduce Greek debt. There is nothing noble in profiting from this privatisation for you and your company. People in Thessaloniki, supported by many groups are concerned that you pursue profits at the expense of workers and citizens. As in other places, you will likely face years of protracted opposition both in Thessaloniki, Greece and across the world. These struggles are well documented. The companies involved find their reputations tarnished, their credibility in shreds, their risks increased and profits limited. We believe your bid is based on a feeble business case. We would hope that corporations today don’t base their business model on opportunism, nor venture into initiatives where they are clearly unwelcome.

There is an alternative to your bid that is supported by the workers of Eyath, by Thessonikians, by the municipalities, and us. That is to keep water in public ownership and ensure it can continue to deliver a high quality service. It is based on the fact that water is a common good and access to drinking water and sanitation is a basic human right as recognized by the UN (2010) and the successful European Citizens Initiative “Water a Human Right”.

We therefore ask you to withdraw your bid and let the citizens of Thessaloniki determine the future of Eyath.

Yours sincerely,

 Signed by

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row el_position=”last”] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

GREECE

Organisations

Art Bank, Greece

·       Athens Initiative for a self – organized field at Hellenikon, Greece

·       Citizens of Pilio against the privatization and sell-off of water, Greece

·       Citizens’ Initiative for a fundamental constitutional revision

·       Consumer Social Cooperative of Thessaloniki “Βίος Coop”, Greece

·       Ecological Group “Mother Earth”, Pieria, Greece

·       Ecology-Solidarity (Oikologia – Allilengyi), Greece

·       Ecological Movement of Thessaloniki, Greece

·       Ecology-Greens (Oikologi – Prasinoi) of Central Macedonia

·       EDOTH N/T ADEDY THESSALONIKIS

·       ELE Audit committee for the public debt of Greece

·       Environmental Society of Preveza, Greece

·       FOINIX Organization for sustainable growth applications, Crete

·       Free Popular Resistance Group (E.L.L.A.S.), Greece

·       Hellenic Biodiversity Center, Greece

·       Ikaria Center for Documentation, Research and Action, Greece

·       Initiative 136, Greece

·       Initiative for an understanding of waste disposal management, Greece

·       Network of Exchange and Solidarity of Magnesia, Greece

·       Pancretan Struggle Network against Industrial Renewable Energy Sources

·       People’s University of Social Solidarity Economy, Greece

·       PROSKALO – Cooperation Initiative for the Social and Solidarity Economy

·       SEEYATH, Somateio Ergazomenon EYATH, Greece

·       SOStetoNERO, Greece

·       Save Greek Water, Greece

·       Trade Unions Centre of Thessaloniki, part of G.S.E.E, Greece

·       Without Debt, Without Euro – Community of Thought and Action, Greece

EUROPE

Organisations

·       Action from Ireland, Ireland

·       Agua de Todos, Portugal

·       Abvakabo FNV, The Netherlands

·       Aquattac

·       Alburnus Maior Association (Save Rosia Montana Campaign)

·       Asociatia Bankwatch Romania

·       Associação Sindical dos Profissionais da Inspecção Tributária, Portugal

·       ATTAC Austria

·       ATTAC Castilla y León, Spain

·       ATTAC España

·       ATTAC Norway

·       Berliner Wassertisch, Germany

·       BSRB Federation of State and Municipal Employees, Iceland

·       Campaign for the Welfare State, Norway

·       Centro di Volontariato Internazionale, Italia

·       CGSP Centrale Générale des Services Publics Wallonne, Belgium

·       Confederação Portuguesa das Colectividades de Cultura, Recreio e Desporto (CPCCRD), Portugal

·       Coordination Eau Île-de-France, France

·       Corporate Europe Observatory

·       Coordination Gaz-Électricité-Eau Bruxelles, Belgium   

     Coordination Rhône-Méditerranée des Associations des Usagers de l’Eau, France

     CSC-FEC, Belgium

·       Eau Bien Commun PACA, France

·       Eau Secours 34, France

·       Ecologistas en Acción, Spain

·       Eco Ruralis Association – In support of traditional and organic farmers

·       ELA, Basque Workers Solidarity

·       Euracme, Belgium

·       European Federation of Food Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions, Belgium

·       European Federation of Public Service Unions

·       European Water Movement

·       Federacion de Empleados Publicos de la Union Sindical Obrera, España

·       Federation “Construction, Industry and Water-Supply” – “PODKREPA”, Bulgaria

·       Fédération des services publics CGT, France

·       FOA – Trade and Labour, Denmark

·       Food & Water Europe

·       Forum Italiano Movimenti per l’Acqua, Italy

·       Foundation for Environment and Agriculture, Bulgaria

·       France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, France

·       Gemeingut in BürgerInnenhand (GiB), Germany

·       GoodPlanet Belgium

·       Government and Public Entities Section – General Workers’ Union, Malta

·       InfOMG – Information Center about GMO’s, Romania

·       Ingénieurs sans frontières, Belgium

·       Institut Européen de Recherche sur la Politique de l’Eau, Belgium

·       Kairos Europe

·       Marée Citoyenne, France

·       Movimento Pela Água, Portugal

·       Mouvement Utopia, France

·       Pancyprian Freedom Guild Worker Water Boards, Cyprus

·       Parti ÉGALITÉ, Belgium

·       Social Development Cooperative, The Netherlands

·       SIPTU Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union, Ireland

·       Swedish Municipal Workers Union, Kommunal, Sweden

·       Sindikata zdravstva Crne Gore, Montenegro

·       The Angry Youth – informal group in Cluj-Napoca, Romania

·       The Corner House, UK

·       The Finnish Public Services Unions’ EU Party FIPSU ry, Finland

·       The Slovak-Scandinavian cooperative Urd, Slovakia

·       Trade Union of Local Government Employess, Denmark

·       Trade Union of State and Local Goverment Employees, Croatia

·       Trade Union of  Public and Welfare Sectors JHL ry, Finland

·       Objectif Ô, Belgium

·       Organic Agriculture Association, Albania

·       Oxfam Solidarité, Belgium

·       PROTOS, Belgium

·       Re:Common, Italy

·       Re.Generation – Bucharest, Romania

·       VISION, Sweden

·       Vodovod I Kanalizacija, Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina

·       Water Movement Norway

·       WIB “Wasser in Bürgerhand”, Germany

·       Unison, Bristol Water Services Branch, UK

·       UNIÃO DOS SINDICATOS DE LISBOA (USL/CGTP-IN), Portugal

·       Zukunftskonvent, Germany

INTERNATIONAL

Organisations

·       Alliance of Government Workers in the Water Sector, Philippines

·       Blue Planet Project, Canada

·       Canadian Union of Public Employees, Canada

·       Citizen’s Front for Water Democracy (CFWD), India

·       Confederation Chretienne des Syndicats Malgaches “Sekrima”, Madagascar

·       Federación Nacional de Trabajadores del Agua Potable del Peru, Peru

·       Federation of Parastatal Bodies and Other Unions, Mauritius

·       Food & Water Watch, USA

·       Information Resource Centre (For Mah. labour) Nagpur, India

·       Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development

·       KRuHA people’s coalition for the right to water, Indonesia

·       LDA EU, Pakistan

·       Nagpur Municipal Corporation Employees Union, India

·       National Platform Against Water Privatization (NPAWP), India

·       The Council of Canadians, Canada

·       Transnational Institute

·       Public Sector Employees Fedration of Pakistan, Pakistan

·       Public Service Alliance of Canada, Canada

·       Public Services International

·       Red Vida, the Americas

·       South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), South Africa

·       Su Hakki Kampanyasi, Turkey

·       Swarna Hansa Foundation, Sri Lanka

·       Water & Energy Users’ Federation (WAFED), Nepal

Members of the European Parliament

·       ANDERSON Martina, Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Ireland

·       ARLACCHI Pino, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

·       ARSENIS Kriton, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Greece

·       BALDINI Marino,Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Croatia

·       BÈLIER Sandrine, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, France

·       BENNAHMIAS Jean-Luc, Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, France

·       CASHMAN Michael, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, United Kingdom

·       CASTEX Françoise, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, France

·       CHILDERS Nessa, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Ireland

·       COFFERATI Sergio Gaetano, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

     DELVAUX Anne, Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Belgium

·       EICKHOUT Bas, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Netherlands

·       GARCIA-HIERRO CARABALLO Dolores, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Spain

·       HÂNDEL Thomas, Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Germany

·       JAAKONSAARI Liisa, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Finland

·       JADOT Yannick, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, France

·       JONG de Cornelis, Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Netherlands

·       KADENBACH Karin, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Austria

·       KLEVA KEKUŠ Mojca, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Slovenia

·       KOVÀCS Béla, Non-attached Members, Hungary

·       LAMBERT Jean, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, United Kingdom

·       LEICHTFRIED Jörg, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Austria

·       LEINEN Jo, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Germany

·       MERKIES Judith A., Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Netherlands

·       MILANA Guido, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

·       MIRANDA Ana, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Spain

·       PALECKIS Justas Vincas, Lithuania

·       PAPADOPOULOU Antigoni, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Cyprus

·       PERELLO RODRIGUEZ, Andres, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Spain

·       PIRILLO Mario, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

·       PITTELA Gianni, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

·       PRODI Vittorio, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

·       REGNER Evelyn, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Austria

·       RIVASI Michèle, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, France

·       ROMEVA I RUEDA Raül, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Spain

·       RÜHLE Heidi, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Germany

·       SCHOLZ Helmut, Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Germany

·       SIMON Peter, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Germany

·       STADLER Ewald, Non-attached member, Austria

·       STAES Bart, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Belgium

·       TARABELLA Marc, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Belgium

·       TOIA Patrizia, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Italy

·       ULVSKOG Marita, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Sweden

·       VAJGL Ivo, Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Slovenia

·       WEIDENHOLZER Josef, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Austria

·       WILS Sabine, Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Germany

·       WOJCIECHOWSKI Janusz, European Conservatives and Reformists Group, Poland

·       ZANONI Andrea, Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Italy

·       ZIMMER Gabi, President of Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, Germany, Germany

INDIVIDUALS 

 ·     David McDonald, Professor, Queen’s University, Canada

·       David Barkin, Profesor de Economía, Mexico

·       Lucienne THIPHAINE, journaliste et plasticienne. France

·       Ursula Pezeu, sophrologist, translator, France

·       Jutta Schutz, Aquattac

·       Leslie Franke and Herdolor Lorenz, Kernfilm

·       Evgnomia Xinu, Thessaloniki, Greece

·       Christophe Thurotte, Chargé d’études, GAIA Concept, France

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row]

[box] With a general and unsubstantiated cliché that “privatization is an  one-way for EYATH”  transmitted by the private TV channels – who are the only ones – the Greek government welcomed the news of the retreat of the European Commission and the exclusion of water services from the new concessions directive.[/box]

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

After the strong stance of the German public opinion and despite of collusion of the political parties and of course in view of the elections, it seems that the Commission was forced to retreat in the end and to completely exclude  water services from the Concessions Directive.

This Directive for many actors of the civil society was a way to facilitate privatization across Europe against the will of most Europeans and fortunately it was averted. Although Commissioner Barnier tried repeatedly to reassure that the Commission does not make these changes in order to proceed with privatizations his statements fell to the void thanks to the good level of awareness of European citizens on the matter. Reading the angry response (below) of AQUAFED, the International Federation of Private Water Providers , to the Commission’s memo, even the most naive understands  what was the case and the stakes.

This great victory for which one can read in detail in the European Commission Memo that follows, should have already become an emblematic argument to the government’s lips for excluding Greek water services from privatization, unless of course the conception of ‘new Greece‘ , that was invented a few days ago by the governmental communication team, indeed provides for less “blue“, ie fewer rights to access to water for their citizens.

An one-way  is unfortunately laid  when one can confirm the lack of political will for a solution sought in a democratic way. We are still waiting for the presidential decree so the  17 municipalities of Thessaloniki can  hold local referendums against the privatization of EYATH. An one-way is laid even when there is no will to protect the public interest.

Because how else can one describe this obsession, despite the changes in the European landscape, even despite the declarations of “mistakes” by the IMF, and even despite the Commission’s letter (where they declare that they are not pushing in the least for the privatization and that they act fully in accordance with the Article 345 TFEU ) in a sale of a profitable enterprise of geostrategic nature (see disputes over large dams and water scarcity in the Middle East), that is also necessary for “development“?

If the Prime Minister does not do this minimum, now,  -which is the maximum for all of us, i.e. our water– while the climate in Europe, the EU institutions and legal science pave him exactly the opposite “one-way“, we are not expecting anything from his office.

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
MEMO

Brussels, 26 June 2013

Commissioner Michel Barnier welcomes agreement on new rules for the award of concession contracts.
I congratulate the European Parliament and the Council on having reached agreement on a new Directive on the award of concession contracts. This is not only about ensuring transparency and equal treatment in the single market. It’s about providing a flexible framework for partnerships between public and private that will boost much needed investments in infrastructure and services, and ultimately contribute to better quality works and services for citizens at a better price.  These new rules will greatly improve legal security for public authorities and economic operators across Europe when cooperating on infrastructure projects such as roads or ports or the provision of services to the citizens.

The draft Directive confirms the autonomy of contracting authorities across Europe to decide on the best way to provide public services. When they have recourse to concessions, the new rules will give them flexibility as to the choice of the award procedures and the choice of the most appropriate, non-discriminatory award criteria.
The new rules will also provide for a well-functioning internal market in concessions, by ensuring EU-wide transparency and competition as concession notices will be published in the Official Journal of the EU. This means not only more opportunities for contracting authorities but also for EU companies, including SMEs, and consequently increased economic growth and more jobs. The draft Directive further clarifies the cases in which contracts concluded between contracting authorities are not subject to the application of concession award rules. This brings valuable support to the development of public-public cooperation.

Finally, it was agreed, as I suggested last Friday, to exclude water from the scope of the new rules.

The negotiations in the Parliament and in the Council, accompanied by EU citizens’ voices on the issue of water in particular, have led to a very good result. I am confident that the European Parliament and the Council will confirm this very soon. I would like to warmly thank all the people who have contributed to this success and in particular, the rapporteur, Philippe Juvin, as well as the Cypriot, Danish and Irish Presidencies for their willingness to reach a first reading agreement, and for their spirit of compromise. I also wish to thank all the stakeholders for their involvement in consultations; they have helped us to come up with solutions adapted to concession contracts.

Background

In December 2011, as announced in the Single Market Act (IP/11/469), the Commission adopted its proposal on the award of concession contracts (IP/11/1580). This proposal is part of an overall programme aiming at modernising public procurement in the European Union.

Concessions are partnerships between the public sector and mostly private companies, where the latter exclusively operate, maintain and carry out the development of infrastructure (ports, airports, parking garages, toll roads) or provide services of general economic interest (energy and waste disposal for example). Concessions are the most
common form of Public Private Partnership (PPP). Unlike public contracts, which are regulated by the European public procurement Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC and public works concessions, which are partially covered Directive 2004/18/EC, the award of service concessions is not subject to any clear and unambiguous provisions, being guided only by the general principles of transparency and equal treatment of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. This loophole gives rise to potentially serious distortions of the Single Market such as direct awards of contracts without any competition (with associated risks of national favouritism, fraud and corruption) and generates considerable inefficiencies.

Main elements of the new rules:
(1) A clearer and more precise definition of a concession (building on the Court’s case law);
(2) Coverage of award of works and services concessions both in the classic sector (all other sectors not covered by utilities) and in the utilities sector (Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC respectively);
(3) Compulsory publication of concessions in the Official Journal of the EU, when their value is equal to or greater than €5,000,000;
(4) Pragmatic solution for dealing with changes to concessions contracts during their term notably when justified by unforeseen circumstances;
(5) Establishment of certain obligations with respect to the selection and award criteria to be applied by the contracting authorities and contracting entities when awarding concessions. These rules aim at ensuring that such criteria are published in advance, are objective and not discriminatory. In general, they are less rigid than similar provisions
currently applicable to public contracts;
(6) No specific award procedures but instead definition of certain general guaranties aimed at ensuring transparency and equal treatment with particular reference to negotiation;
(7) Application of the Remedies Directives (Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EC, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC) to all concessions above the threshold, which will guarantee judicial protection for all EU companies bidding for such projects More information on concessions is available at: MEMO/11/932

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row el_position=”last”] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

AquaFed
THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PRIVATE WATER OPERATORS

PRESS RELEASE

Concessions Directive:

European Commissioner renounces transparency and equity in public water services to please German public lobbies

Brussels, 26 June 2013. Through its proposal for a directive on “concessions”, the European Commission has tried to improve transparency in the delivery of public services of general economic interest, to ensure equity for operators of these services and to improve legal security for local governments that want to enter into Public-Private Partnership contracts (PPPs). The initial draft directive proposed by Commissioner Barnier provided procedural guidance to local authorities if and when they decide to enter into a PPP with an external operator. It did not create any obligation for authorities to outsource any of their public service.
On June 21, contrary to previous statements and despite evidence that the directive has nothing to do with privatization” of water services, Commissioner Barnier announced that he was willing to exclude water services from the list of services that would have to comply with the future directive. This decision is detrimental to European citizens. Furthermore, the way it was taken is not the sign of transparency and public accountability. A dangerous exclusion. Excluding water from the scope of the directive on concessions would significantly reduce its usefulness and would go against the interests of EU citizens.

– AquaFed estimates that there are currently over 12,000 PPP contracts for water or wastewater in Europe that are designated as “concessions” in the EU legislation. This number exceeds by far the number of PPP contracts in other sectors and might be close to half the total number of “concessions” contracts across the European Union that are potentially subject to the future directive. In that context, excluding water would mean that the Directive would only reach half of its initial target.

– The exclusion of water services would not improve transparency in the activity of opaque public utilities and would not reduce inequity of treatment of operators in a sector that is very sensitive for European citizens and in which many of them are calling for increased transparency. Endusers will bear the burden of this.

We hope that the EU will be able to find a more appropriate solution. The Commission should not promote a half-useful, half-detrimental directive. Either the Directive is adopted without any exclusion or exception of any kind for the water sector, or its merits are not sufficient and it should be significantly modified for all sectors before it can be adopted.

Democracy as a pretext

The Commissioner has justified this decision by accepting to please the signatories of the current European Citizens’ Initiative on the Human Right to Water. He treats these signatories as if they were representative of all European Citizens and as if they were opposed to this directive. This is premature. Relevant services of the EC declare that they have not yet received the initiative formally and it has never been discussed within the European Parliament.
Furthermore, this Initiative has only attracted many signatories because, in reality, it has been marketed throughout Europe to support better implementation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. Private water operators support the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. On 22 March 2013, AquaFed even proposedi to the EU Commission and Parliament to amend the European Charter on Fundamental Rights in order that this human right is included in EU legislation. The implementation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation and the ways of organising the related services are completely disconnected issues, practically and legally. This has been formally recognized by both international lawii and the UN Special Rapporteur on this human
right iii. The number of ECI signatories that are willing to defend this human right, but are opposed to the Concessions Directive cannot be known. It is certainly very small in comparison with the European population, since the Initiative does not even mention the draft directive on Concessions. Furthermore, by the end of February 2013, more than 1.2 million people had signed this Initiative when, before that date, the official campaign website www.right2water.org had never mentioned the Concessions Directive. It is significant to note that close to 80% of signatories (1.3 million) are from Germany, while citizens from other parts of Europe that are the most-exposed to private management of public water services, i.e. England, Spain, France and the Czech Republic have never been very interested in this Initiative
and the number of signatories in these countries is still very small. Therefore, this Citizens Initiative is obviously fueled by German lobbies. It cannot be considered as representative of European citizens and not justify the exclusion of water from the Concessions directive. German public sector lobbies oppose increasing transparency of public water services German municipally-owned utilities that deliver services to cities outside their owners’ territory without benefiting from an “in-house” status and ever having been put into competition with anybody lobbied hard against this directive. These German utilities could have been required to justify their price to water-users in a far more transparent way than they do at present. They would also have to face the test of competition. In Germany, a lot of false arguments were raised. Several lobbies have insinuated that the European Union was willing to force German municipalities to “privatise” their water services. This has been repeatedly rebuffed by Commissioner Barnier and his colleagues. This was pure propaganda, but it was effective: many German parliamentarians have lobbied against this directive being used in the water sector and Commissioner Barnier has yielded to them. The fear of German public utilities of having to run their business in a more transparent way was however stronger than the Commission’s willingness to secure legal certainty for local authorities when outsourcing their water activities and stronger than the international obligations of European States to ensure, “regardless of the form of provision, transparency, non-discrimination and accountability” in water supply services as requested by the human right.

Aquafed will therefore ask the Commission under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 for access to the communications it has had with German and other lobbies concerning the special treatment they lobbied for with regards to water activities

AquaFed is the International Federation of Private Water Operators. Open to companies and associations of
companies of all sizes and from all countries, it aims to contribute to solving water challenges by making Private
Sector know-how and experience available to the international community. It brings together more than 300 water
companies that serve hundreds of millions of people in 40 countries.
In Europe, AquaFed is present through its members in the majority of EU Member States, mostly by means of
PPP (Public-Private Partnerships, including concession-type) contracts and through contracts with industrial
water-users. The third of the European population benefits from water or wastewater services that are at least
partially operated by private or public-private companies. The majority of these people is served by companies
represented by our Federation.

# # #
Media contacts: Mr. Thomas Van Waeyenberge: +32 4 79 23 78 26 / [email protected]
www.aquafed.org

i www.aquafed.org/pages/fr/admin/UserFiles/pdf/2013-03-22_AquaFed_EuropeanCharter_PressRelease_EN.pdf
ii The UN Human Rights Council in its same historic resolution that embedded the right to safe drinking water and
sanitation in international law. Its Article 7 of this resolution says: “Recognizes that States, in accordance with
their laws, regulations and public policies, may opt to involve non-State actors in the provision of safe drinking
water and sanitation services and, regardless of the form of provision, should ensure transparency, nondiscrimination
and accountability;”
iii The UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation wrote a specific report on
the matter and confirmed the disconnect in her letter dated 10 Oct 2012 to Ms. Anne Marie Perret, Representative
of the Citizens’ Committee European Citizens Campaign – ECI where she wrote:
“In seeking to ensure universal service provision, human rights are neutral about the type of service delivery that
is decided upon in a particular country – whether it is direct provision by the State, whether services are operated
by a private company after a formal delegation, or whether the provision of services is informal. However, the
provision through private actors does under no circumstances exempt the State from its human rights obligations
to progressively realize the rights to water and sanitation.”

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row]

The tender for the selling of Thessaloniki water company,  EYATH, which takes place under media silence by (private) TV stations  enters now in its second phase, after the TAIPED excluded “Citizens for Water“(the effort of cooperative management by Thessalonians together with the union workers). Mr. Stavridis, former president of the EYDAP (Athens Water Company) and now head of  TAIPED (or HDRAF, the fund where all public assets were transferred in order to be sold), who is among the most eager supporters of  free economy, especially when it is implemented by creating private monopolies under the supervision of “regulators”, in a monumental, for the lack of any legal or other documentation or explanation, letter ‘informs’  in an acquiescent tone that the Union’s proposal does not “pass” to the next phase. In the next phase, however, passes the French multinational Suez along with the even more willing Mr. Bobolas and even  the public (!) Israeli company Mekorot’s joint venture with Mr. Apostolopoulos. The Union has already filed a complaint, as it was expected, and now we wait.

We wait furthermore for the implementation of the decisions of 17 municipalities from the region of Thessaloniki  to hold local referendums and the signing of the relevant notorious presidential decree which enables this procedure,  a decree which is characteristically “slow” in its legislative adventure, from Callicrates until today – how many years is it? – While overnight the institutional “father” of the Greek people signed with a stroke of a pen the abolition of ERT. Following the announced privatization of water,  a few days ago, ” black” fell on all television, radio, internet and satellite programs of the public broadcaster.

It is a sad development in our effort to inform our fellow citizens over the dangers of privatization, since we were expecting  the projection of a relevant documentary of the series  “EXANDAS” by Y. Avgeropoulos, in the preparation of which we participated. This development is dangerous for another delicate reason, which falls in the category of our engagement with the wider concept of the commons. The archive of ERT, the ark of our modern cultural history, it is inconceivable for us to become an object  of vulgar trade and such an act would signify the ultimate enclosure, beyond that of our natural collective goods such as water, of our collective intellect and our cultural heritage.

In both cases what we see is a palinode. The government blames the Troika and the European Commission and the Commission washes its hands regarding these decisions. I want to denounce the current government and especially their assistant political parties, who are opposed, as they claim,  at the sale of EYATH (and the abolition of ERT) that they are moving on their own responsibility and to a future time hopefully liability in this sale, since there is an official letter from the European Commission that says they are not pushing our country in this direction. Why the Commission wrote this letter? They know that the pressure to privatize water services is unlawful, since they are bound by the TFEU to be neutral on issues of management of water services (Article 345 TFEU). So if the government is pressed, they have to admit it in public, to come forward and say that the European Commission  is lying and we can all support them and go to the European courts. If the government is not pressed and simply lacks rationality and an  understanding of the concept of public interest, there is another reason why they shouldn’t want the sale of water services. In the case of Athens even if sold at 350 million, ie the market value of our shares, the public sector’s shares, to the water company, tomorrow instead of collecting, the government should instead pay, since the company has receivables from the State, local authorities, etc., which mount up to 1.2 billion! (See Annual Financial Report 2012). As for the European Commission, they have no legitimacy to move forward with the privatization in the countries of the South, when we already have in our hands the first historically successful European Citizens’ Initiative right2water. Instead of playing hide and seek, they would do well to open directly processes to institutionalize the human right to access to clean water and hygiene, which was adopted in 2010 by the UN, as the proposed legislative initiative by the citizens suggest and abandon their desires for establishing a water market in Europe,  desires rooting in the Steering group of Mr Barnier, a body composed of high ranking executives of the sector’s multinationals. The institutional role of Mr Barnier, although he fails to grasp it, is the European public interest and speculation on the basic needs of European citizens do not reflect it in the least.

Whether it is about our  physical commons such as water, or our collective cultural heritage, one thing is certain. Each enclosure is directly or indirectly against the fundamental human right to life. Commons are not owned by any temporary elected representative.

Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the above, there is one point on which everyone would meet me upon: It is the responsibility of the Politeia (State) (Greek and European) to  give an institutional way-out at the society’s will . If it cannot perform it, we have an ontological crisis as a political society, far more destructive than the much discussed economical.

Sign for your water in Greece and Europe.

Some figures: EYATH is a company with a monopoly on the supply of water in Thessaloniki area. It has profitability in 2012 of 24 million euros, available cash 33 million euros, equity of 135 million euros and annual income 74 million. The value of the stock is 220 million euros and the 75% that is held by TAIPED if sold in the market value which is 165 million euros, the investor will get his money back in six years and will obtain ownership of a company with monopoly rights. It is an investment that with current water prices has an 18% annual return on capital employed (33/135) and if the tarrifs are increased the return yields off.

Why “no” to privatization: What are the implications in our lives from the privatization of water services; What does international experience show? • sudden price increases of 250% – 300% with the partial privatization of EYATH. Prices x12 times in Bucharest over 13 years. Pacos de Ferreira Portugal 400% increase and 6% increase each year.• Degradation of water quality and uneven access to water services. In Walkerton (Ontario) Canada seven people lost their lives drinking water with bacteria E coli. Extensive infections with Suez in Johannesburg (South Africa). • Incomplete network maintenance & breaches of contractual terms for investments. In France, funding water services are still made by the public sector at 88%. In Argentina, the government terminated the contract with Suez for breach of its contractual obligations (maintenance and expansion of the network). • Monopolistic practices and cartels. The EU conducted research at SUEZ, VEOLIA and SAUR, for trusts in France (2012). In England companies right from the stage of the competition do not compete with each other and take to competitions without rival. • Lack of accountability and secret agreements. Most contracts remain secret eluding anyone control. In Berlin, the VEOLIA and RWE, in 1999, had demanded a written guarantee large profit was kept secret until the public in 2011 by referendum demanded to publicize the terms of the contract. Wherevere applied, water privatization has failed.

The international trend is the recovery of water services by public bodies (France, Canada, Argentina, Hungary). The Italians prevented water privatization with a referendum (2011). In the Netherlands water services is by law public (2004). In Germany, except in the case of Berlin, where developments of remunicipalization are underway, water management is done by public bodies.

*Ms Kanellopoulou is a founding member of the Initiative for the non privatization of water in Greece savegreekwater.org

Written Press Release in English

[box] In an impressive strategy move, Movement 136 from Thessaloniki, finds the funds needed to participate in the tender for the sale of EYATH. Despite the doubts in theory as for example the fact that since the company is public we are already all  “shareholders” , so basically we re-buy something that belongs to us already, and despite other reservations regarding the “noble intentions” of the funders, from a realistic prospect, this move  is an answer in “market” terms  so that the water company of Thessaloniki does not pass easily into the hands of Suez and Aktor. It’s probably a checkmate move in a condition where the unconstitutionality and the legal struggles but also the democratic consensus of citizens is  “postponed” for the future, and where the state of emergency has become nothing less than permanent. Hopefully the referendum announced by the municipality of Thessaloniki will be also decisive  for not privatizing the company eventually, though unfortunately it is not legally binding for the government.[/box]

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row] [vc_row el_position=”last”] [vc_column] [vc_column_text el_position=”first last”]

Republication from enet

Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates has come out in support of an initiative taken by Thessaloniki citizens to acquire a 51% stake in the city’s public water company Eyath, which the government is seeking to privatise.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose primary aim is to enhance world healthcare, is among 22 international organisations supporting the citizens’ movement, known as Initiative 136.

The government last February announced a public tender to sell the controlling stake in Thessaloniki Water Supply & Sewerage (Eyath).

Initiative 136 is among four investment groups that have expressed interest in the international tender for the purchase of a 51% stake in the company.

The citizens’ initiative opposes the privatisation of the company and proposes its social management through local-level cooperatives.

The name of the initiative comes from dividing the estimated value of Eyath by the number of users, which produces the symbolic number of €136.

According to the initiative’s manifesto, the government’s privatisation plan for Eyath “is another case of implementation of the model ‘privatisation of the profits, socialisation of the loss'”.

“Water is the ultimate commodity that nature offers us and the United Nations has recognised that the access to clean water and sanitation is a human right,” Initiative 136 says.

They stress that Eyath is an efficient and profitable company that offers quality water services in low prices, without ever reporting any financial loss. The company’s profits during the last 5 years were €75m, while the price of the takeover after the collapse of its stock market value is not more than €55m.

The following organisations have said they will offer financial support to Initiative 136: Accion International and Accion USA, Amalgamated Bank of New York (Amalgamated Ladies Garment Workers Union), Banca Etica, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Blue Orchard Finance, Calvert Foundation, Charity Bank, Citizens Energy Company, Credit Cooperatif, Cultura Sparebank, Ecology Building Society, Epiphany Funds, FINCA International, GLS Gemeinschaftsbank, Merkur Cooperative Bank, Oikocredit USA, Shared Interest, Social Fisnance USA, Symbiotics, Cooperative Banking Group, Unity Trust Bank, Working Capital for Community Needs (WCCN).

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column] [/vc_row]