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 commission agrees to exclude EYDAP / EYATH from privatizations, if requested by the Greek government.

European Commission, apparently under strong international pressure exerted against the privatization of water companies in Greece as well as in the rest of Europe, explicitly states that it is only the Greek government’s decision to sell water companies EYDAP / EYATh. This is the answer of the Commissioner Olli Rehn in the question by Syriza MEP , Nikos Chountis.

In Nikos Chountis’s question, after mentioning the 1.5 million signatures of European citizens initiative «Right2Water», and Article 345 of the Treaty on the Function of the European Union on the EU’s obligation to maintain neutrality concerning the ownership status of enterprises (public or private), the European Commission is asked whether “it would be positive to consider a request from the Greek government to exempt water companies by the general sell-off of public enterprises currently taking place in Greece.”

In response, the Commissioner Olli Rehn said in the most unequivocal manner that the commission “has no policy that obliges Member States to privatize water services,” and 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. ”

Furthermore on his reply , Commissioner Rehn indicates the Greek government referring specifically to the Greek privatization program, stressing that “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 the question remains to the Greek government and to Mr Stournara’s troikan associates why they insist to sell two profitable, and strategically important public companies.

Parliamentary questions 26 June 2013 P-007557-13

Question for written answer to the Commission

Rule 117 Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

Subject: Privatization of water companies in Greece

The statement by Commissioner Barnier of 21 June 2013 on the exclusion of water from the Concessions Directive was intended to reassure the public that there were no plans to privatize water.

At the same time, however, the Commission, from within the Troika, has called on the Greek Government to sell off its two largest water and sewerage utilities in Greece, the Athens (EYDAP) and Thessaloniki (EYATH) utilities, effectively privatizing water, notwithstanding Mr Barnier’s assertions and the provisions of Article 345 TFEU stating that the Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. Indeed, such a move flies in the face of a number of European Parliament resolutions and, more to the point, the express wishes of European citizens as reflected by the 1500 signatures gathered in support of the right2water initiative.

Given that the two utilities are showing a profit and are in a position to modernize their supply networks and services independently and without the need for private capital injections, would the Commission be favorably inclined to a request from the Greek Government that water utilities be exempted from the current wave of privatizations in Greece and, if so, under what conditions?

1 August 2013

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

The Commission has already stated that it does not have a policy of forcing Member States (MS) to privatize water services. The Commission recognizes that water is a public good which is vital to citizens and that the management of water resources is a matter for MS, and therefore has a neutral position on the public or private ownership of water resources, in accordance with Article 345 of the TFEU. The Commission has already announced that it will remove water from the scope of the concessions directive and will continue to monitor the situation in this sensitive sector closely.

The choice of what, how far and in which sequence public assets or companies should be privatized remains entirely with the MS, taking into account the various constraints they face and objectives they set for themselves. EU-wide experience offers a variety of different public or private property models for water utilities. In both public and private models, there are cases of problematic outcomes, but also success stories. However, the Commission considers that the creation of a regulatory authority and an appropriate market functioning environment are crucial prerequisites for guaranteeing the success of any of these models to protect consumers’ interests and maintain environmental values.

The assets included in the privatization program for program countries are the exclusive result of the national authorities’ decision. Discussions in the context of the adjustment program are focusing on the overall program financing needs, including privatization receipts resulting from the sales of state-owned assets to investors, but the design of the privatization program and the choice of assets remain entirely with the MS concerned.

[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]