Healthcare UK: A Conduit for Market expansion? Part one of a Two Part Report

Healthcare UK was set up in order to sell NHS expertise abroad, but following a series of Freedom of Information requests, Social Investigations can reveal that far from benefitting the NHS, 80 per cent of all contracts gained through Healthcare UK have ended up in private hands.

Memoranda of Understandings made between China and the UK show that in exchange for financial support for UK companies from Chinese investment, the government has promised to provide information on UK health ‘policy’ and offer China’s main financial investment arm access to ‘confidential’ information.

The vast majority of corporations involved in the international agreements are kept hidden through commercial confidentiality but enough evidence has emerged to show how Healthcare UK acts as a conduit for commercial companies in a bid to expand the ‘domestic market’ here in the UK as well as increasing the market abroad.

This is Healthcare UK, unlocking deals for UK companies, some of who are based in tax havens and whose investors have donated to the Conservative party. All in the name of the NHS.

“Good news for the NHS”

The original idea of exporting UK health expertise began under the Labour government, and took place towards the very end of their tenure. The intent behind this project according to then Health Secretary Andy Burnham, was to tap into the “exceptional knowledge and intelligence within the NHS” with “investment of taxpayers’ money and funds raised going straight back into (the) NHS.” In addition the Labour government wanted to generate ‘demand in international markets’ and broker ‘partnerships’ of an unspecified nature.

By the time Labour had lost the election, NHS Global as it was then known, had failed to gain any contracts for the NHS or anyone else through the programme. This lack of interest didn’t deter the coalition, who continued the project with a similar message that selling the NHS abroad was “good news for patients” and the NHS.

In the coalition’s 2011 ‘Plan for Budget Growth’ the government provided a snippet of detail beyond the sound bites that had hitherto emerged (though not much), of what activity would take place abroad.

‘The Government’ it said, ‘will establish a proactive, entrepreneurial NHS Global to make the most of the NHS brand internationally and to offer support and advice to NHS trusts…act as a point of contact for NHS organisations’ to create ‘international customers’ and ‘international opportunities.’ Furthermore, the new NHS Global would ‘represent the interests of the NHS and allow the NHS to shape the final business model.’

The programme was eventually named Healthcare UK, a joint initiative between the Department of Health, the newly formed NHS England and UK Trade and Investment. Not long after its launch, Health Minister Anne Milton said “This is good news for NHS patients, who will get better services at their local hospital as a result of the work the NHS is doing abroad and the extra investment that will generate”.

 
Yet despite these claims, a freedom of information request revealed that just 2 out of 21 contracts obtained through Healthcare UK have gone to ‘public’ organisations, with the vast bulk of 17 ending up in the hands of private companies worth over £281 million.

The beneficiaries

Records of individual contracts won through Healthcare UK, that resulted in an export or non-export deal are termed “business wins”. Information provided to Healthcare UK on these “business wins”, is considered by UK Trade and Investment of which Healthcare UK is a part, to be ‘commercially confidential’ and therefore hidden from pubic view.

According to a Department of Health spokesperson, there is no “such public interest in favour of disclosure…Any unauthorised disclosure of commercially confidential information would be detrimental to companies and would give rise to an actionable breach of confidence…there is a strong public interest in maintaining the confidence in order to secure successful outcomes for British businesses and the attendant economic improvements for the country.” In other words corporate success is more important than the public’s right to know.

Concern over what contracts are being gained and what commercial companies are benefitting is heightened by the fact that Serco, who are under investigation by the Serious Fraud Squad, sit on the Healthcare UK board.

This block on information also prevents us knowing who the two ‘public’ organisations are, listed as having won contracts worth £251,000. Are they NHS organisations or not?

Rather confusingly, a further information request directed at the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS), said NHS organisations have achieved “£45 million of business wins” through support from Healthcare UK. However, as the DBIS admitted, they do not keep records of revenue generated by NHS institutions through Healthcare UK, or whether those institutions were already exporting their expertise prior to the existence of Healthcare UK. It would appear; the Department of Health, Healthcare UK and UK Trade and Investment don’t know what one another are doing or saying.

One NHS organisation that has expanded abroad is The Leeds Teaching Hospitals, who signed a MOU with the King Hussein Cancer Centre of Jordan in 2013. Whether this agreement is part of the NHS "business wins" is not certain because Healthcare UK has blocked the information. In keeping with the general secrecy surrounding these deals, the Leeds Teaching Hospitals also cited “commercial interests” for refusing to answer what costs were involved in running the MOU with Jordan and or any revenue that may have been gained. In echoes of the response from the Department of Health, a spokesperson for the Teaching Hospitals said withholding of this information was more in the “public interest” than any “accountability, transparency, and financial probity”.

Those that we know

When Earl Howe was questioned on Healthcare UK in the House of Lords, he said, the new trade arm, which has an annual cost of £3 million to run, would not “just apply to a few elite organisations.”

Despite most companies preferring anonymity, a few companies have given permission for their names to be public and it would appear the elite are well and truly present.

One successful company in a Chinese deal, is accountancy giant KPMG, who have signed up as a business consultant for a ‘high-end private hospital project’ in Beijing. They will work alongside multinational contractor Arup, who will design the building.

Another beneficiary of Healthcare’s global expansion is Circle Partnership, whose background and presence in the highest echelons of government, highlights exactly why those gaining contracts must be made public.

Circle are part-funded by Odey Management Ltd, who are based in the low tax jurisdiction of the Cayman Islands. One of the main shareholders is Robin Odey who has given £251,000 to the Conservative party. Circle’s former employees Nick Seddon and Christina Robinson work in the No10 Health policy unit and as a special adviser to Jeremy Hunt respectively. It would appear that moving from a private health company into the power base of government is a natural career path these days.

Further parliamentary connections to Circle include Conservative peer Baron Higgins of Worthing, who holds in excess of £50,000 worth of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, another investor in Circle. In case that isn’t concerning enough, Circle Holdings, the controlling body of Circle, is based in the low tax jurisdiction of Jersey; quite how that benefits the NHS and its patients is unclear.

Circle’s involvement?

Circle’s involvement in China is connected to CITIC Trust Co, part of China’s main investment group. In a government press release at the end of last year it said, Healthcare UK has “signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the CITIC Trust and Circle Partnership to unlock commercial deals for UK companies in areas such as primary care services, to provide integrated care and education and training.” In addition, according to their website, Circle will help develop ‘integrated healthcare services for elderly patients’ and act as an adviser on ‘clinical’ matters.

Yet, despite the government trumpeting Circle Partnership’s involvement, Healthcare UK apparently has no idea what Circle is actually doing in China.

In response to a request on Circle’s involvement in Healthcare UK and what information they may be privy to, the government said, “We are not aware of any contract between CITIC and Circle to perform this function (of unlocking deals) and within the CITIC-Healthcare UK MOU no individual company is identified to carry out this function.”

What is known, is that Conservative MP Ken Clarke, who recently resigned from his post as the Minister without portfolio, met with Paolo Pieri, CFO and Tom Muir, the Director of Communications of Circle Partnership in June last year. According to the Cabinet Office, “They discussed the Healthcare UK priority markets of China, the Middle East and Brazil, with a focus on forthcoming events and trade missions…Circle outlined their overseas interests”. It sounds highly improbable that they do not know Circle’s role is in China.

Moreover, if so many contracts are landing in the hands of private companies, how can Healthcare UK claim to be for the benefit of the NHS? After all this was the justification given for selling the ‘NHS brand’ abroad and based on Circle’s role of unlocking ‘commercial deals for UK companies’, it would seem the NHS won’t get a look in.

If the NHS is not benefiting, then who is and in what way? 

Go to part two here.

Healthcare UK: A conduit for Market expansion? Part Two of Two Part report

This is part two of a two part report on Healthcare UK. See part one here first.

Expand the ‘domestic market’
The use of the ‘NHS brand’ to sell healthcare abroad has greatly benefited commercial organisations, with over 80% of contracts landing in private hands. This disproportion towards private healthcare contracts is also taking place on a much larger scale in the NHS. Since the Health and Social Care Act officially began in April 2012, research carried out by the NHS Support Foundation revealed 70% of NHS contracts have ended up with private firms amounting to billions of pounds worth of income.

What this amounts to is an aggressive expansion of the UK healthcare market, which although not mentioned in government propaganda, is their intent. Healthcare UK was also meant to benefit the NHS, but contained in the memorandum signed between Healthcare UK and the Chinese Ministry of Health, it is clear that the main areas of cooperation are designed towards channeling contract opportunities towards private companies. See Appendix 1

The financial awards from China are potentially immense with David Cameron claiming the Chinese healthcare market will grow by $400 billion by 2017. China is seeking to develop a “safe, effective, convenient and affordable” healthcare system to both urban and rural areas by 2020; furthermore, Premier Li Keqiang recently stated he wants to “open the door for private capital”. It is no wonder Cameron wants the UK private sector to be a part of that process.

Access to Policy

A further MOU held between Healthcare UK and CITIC Trust, a Chinese investment arm of the CITIC Group, reveals the extent of cooperation required for their partnership to work. ‘Citic’ it reads, will provide ‘financial support for selected UK healthcare companies wanting to ‘extend their business in China’. In return, Healthcare UK will act as a ‘source of information’ on the ‘UK healthcare industry’, receive access to health ‘policy’, ‘confidential’ information, as well as be invited to form partnerships with ‘UK healthcare organisations.’

When asked about the nature of the ‘confidential’ and policy information provided to CITIC, Ian Cranshaw the Chinese lead for Healthcare UK said, “The confidential information referred to would likely be commercial in confidence type information”. However, he failed to address the policy information that would be imparted. Will CITIC be in advance notice of policy so that it can better select its investments? Will CITIC receive policy before parliament or the people?

The secretive nature of Healthcare UK beyond the marketing publications that adorn its website, means such questions remain unanswered.

Selling debt

The opportunities for private companies don’t end there. A further MOU made between Healthcare UK and the health Bureau of the Eastern coastal province of Zhejiang contains a much wider level of agreement.

These include the design of ‘Health policy and regulation’, ‘Training Medical Staff’, establishing primary care provision, and ‘Systems for national and private insurance’. In addition Healthcare UK will find UK companies to aid China in ‘public and private hospital finance, construction, operation and regulation (PFI)’.

The policy of PFI in the UK has been catastrophic for the NHS with the treasury predicting a total financial burden of £242 billion. PFI continues to plague NHS Hospital Trusts to the point of near bankruptcy, which led to the first takeover of the running of an NHS hospital in Cambridgeshire by Healthcare UK beneficiaries Circle.

Elite private companies largely run PFI, and it is the cruelest of irony that more PFI opportunities should be made by using the ‘NHS brand’. Companies like construction firm Interserve, who have Conservative Peer Lord Blackwell as a director, have raked in millions of pounds through selling some of their PFI interests. Serco and Carillion, who both have representatives on the board of Healthcare UK, have also gained major revenue through PFI schemes, and this particular avenue in China, will do nothing for the NHS.

In order to gain “business wins” in the Zhejiang province, Healthcare UK provides pilot programmes from which they aim to gain contracts for those involved. Yet here again, Mr Cranshaw explained “the pilots involve private UK companies rather than NHS institutions”, and as the pilot schemes are ongoing, what these pilot schemes are and who is involved face commercial restrictions.

The government has claimed the three agreements with China will provide £120 million to the UK economy, though how they have reached that sum is currently unclear and a request for a breakdown of these figures has been made. Of course any deals that are confirmed will not necessarily have the names of the companies attached and so we will be unclear whether those gaining contracts are based in low tax jurisdictions; have donated to any political party or indeed held meetings with government officials.

The push to be involved in the global healthcare market is well under way. Private companies dominate the list of firms put forward by Healthcare UK to operate in China and the contracts won.

The NHS is staring into the barrel of the Health and Social Care Act legislative gun, weighed down by debt and deliberate underfunding. The idea that an overstretched NHS can compete financially or even manage to operate an international trade arm is highly questionable. Healthcare UK appears as yet another government vehicle designed for the market over that of the NHS that has very little intention to benefit patients.

When the government announced the Chinese deal, the NHS was not mentioned in their press release and based on the contracts won and the money gained so far, the NHS will be but a minor beneficiary of the global expansion that markets in their name.

Appendix 1

The five areas of cooperation listed in the agreement with Zhejiang MOU are:

Digital healthcare – Multiple commercial companies providing telehealth, telecare technology

Healthcare training and education – this could be NHS but majority of organisations mentioned in the Healthcare UK publication ‘China and the UK: partners in healthcare' are private

Hospitals: Planning, design, built management equipment – KPMG (business consultants), Arup (design, contractors)

Care for the elderly - Circle

Primary healthcare including implementing a GP system - Circle

Recall – Disdain for the Public

Scandal brings change. Scandal was the catalyst for the introduction of the Register of Members Interests. Scandal was responsible for the Code of Conduct that now, albeit insufficiently, guides parliamentary behaviour. Scandal tightens the rules and forces an increase in transparency. In times of scandal, parliament is vulnerable, and when scandal takes place near election time, then it can often prompt promises that would otherwise not be made.

When the expenses scandal broke, the 2010 election was just around the corner. Faced with a huge public backlash, all three parties promised to introduce a policy that would allow for constituents to carry out a petition to recall their MP from office if they were found to have carried out any ‘serious wrongdoing’. The Conservative manifesto, said if such behaviour took place, then it would act as a trigger that will allow a petition to be raised, and if that petition was signed by at least 10% of the electorate, then this would kick-start a by-election. No longer would the voting public have to rely on an MP having enough dignity to resign from their position or for the local party to de-select them. The Recall policy, which also entered the coalition agreement, would increase the power of the electorate, act as a genuine threat to any MP thinking of acting like a Patrick Mercer and go some way to restoring trust in a parliament often seen as a detriment to democracy.

Such a policy is not new. By the beginning of this century, a form of recall was already implemented at some level of government in around 24 countries worldwide, including; six of the 26 Swiss cantons, the Canadian Province of British Columbia, Venezuela, the Philippines, South Korea, Argentina and Taiwan.’  House of Commons Library Standard Note, Recall Elections, Charley Coleman and Oonagh Gay, January 2012, p 4; International IDEA, Direct Democracy: the International IDEA Handbook, 2008, p 115  Back

The UK government is playing catch up, but they are reluctant to even do that.

A White Paper on Recall was put forward, which was roundly condemned by the select committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, as being so restricted, that under the government proposals, “constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall petition.” This intentionally “weakened effort” they said, would do nothing to “increase public confidence in politics…and could even reduce confidence by creating expectations that are not fulfilled.” Furthermore, they felt there was no “gap in the disciplinary procedures” that needed filling by the introduction of Recall. Rather, they suggested the power to expel Members who are guilty of serious wrongdoing should be used, which as we know has only taken place in three times in the last century. This they concluded “should be regarded as an active option; rather than a theoretical possibility.”

This too however, would leave the sanction to be imposed on MPs in their own hands.

Part of the problem was their ability to agree on the ambiguous definition of ‘serious wrongdoing’ and what would amount to a trigger for a by-election. A YouGov survey carried out last year asked the public what behaviour they thought should act as a trigger. After all, if this policy was about empowering the electorate, then presumably they would want a say. The survey provided eleven options ranging from ‘a crime serious enough to receive a prison sentence’, ‘taking bribes’, or ‘lying in Parliament.’

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, felt that the best guide to go by would be if anybody breached the code of conduct. However, there is clearly a difference between somebody forgetting to declare an interest in a debate, compared to somebody offering access to policy in exchange for money. One of the other suggested ‘triggers’ for Recall would be if an MP was given a custodial sentence of twelve months or less. Professor Anne Twomey is an expert in constitutional law based in Australia with extensive knowledge of Recall systems in other countries. She suggests the ‘primary types of actions for which voters would like the opportunity to recall Members are those that involve the misuse or abuse of a Member's position and do not usually involve prison terms—such as breaches of entitlements, acts of dishonesty, misuse of parliamentary privilege, nepotism, making decisions that favour family members or business associates, and the like.’

The promise of Recall, made in the face of rising public anger at the widespread abuse of the expenses system, was first weakened, and then dropped, which led to a blame game within the coalition as to where the blame lay. The failure of the Conservative party to keep to their election promise greatly angered one their own MPs, Zac Goldsmith, who had pushed for the policy to be realised and created his own version of the Bill. “Parties can stuff their manifestos full of clever promises” he said, “but if voters don't believe them, they may as well present blank sheets…How is it possible that our leaders still don't understand that the single biggest cause of people's hatred of them is deceit?”

Then up stepped the Queen to announce the government would indeed introduce a Recall bill would be created but the power remains in the hands of MPs who will effectively be able to veto a move for recall.

The hammer blow for democracy, transparency and localism amounts to the equivalent of government laughing in the face of the electorate. When their hands were caught in the taxpayer’s pockets, for flipping mortgages, redecorating, getting media training, hanging baskets, dog food, duck ponds, bath mats, gardening, you name it, then they were only too quick to apologise and promise Recall.

Nobody was saying introducing a Recall bill was simple, but to leave it in the hands of the very same people who created the scandal that required the bill is to laugh in the face of the public and make a mockery of their apology to the public over their excessive and sometimes criminal pilfering of public money.

Mass EU call for transparency in US/EU trade talks

‘People have a right to know what is at stake’

As the 5^th round of negotiations on the US/EU free trade agreement kicks off in the US, 250 organisations, including from the UK, have today sent a joint letter to EU Trade Commissioner, Karel de Gucht, demanding transparency in this massive but secretive deal. 

The letter, signed by a broad range of consumer, union, environment and other organisations calls for negotiating texts for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to be released to the public, as well as information on ‘who is lobbying who’ in relation to the deal.

Although there is some talk of the Commission releasing its negotiating mandate (which was leaked a year ago), the actual offers being made on behalf of 850 million people are still secret, with the intention to keep the negotiating texts secret until TTIP negotiations are complete.

The main thrust of TTIP is ‘harmonising’ the regulations of the US and the EU – across all areas. There are big differences between the EU and US in health and safety regulatory protection. Thus civil society groups are concerned that standards e.g. on food and chemical safety, data protection and public service models, will be degraded -  with this happening behind closed doors.

‘It’s  absolutely unacceptable that key TTIP documents are not only being kept from the public,  but that MPs are not allowed to know what is going forward in this supposed ‘trade’ deal either. This joint statement shows the breadth of resistance to this secrecy’ according to Linda Kaucher of StopTTIP uk. 

This deal will allow corporations to sue governments for varying regulations after commitments are made and signed up. Yet the commitments being made are being kept secret.

The organisations are therefore calling for step-by-step release of the negotiating texts, in all chapters of the agreement, and also of records of the lobbying meetings that have taken place for this corporate-agenda deal.  Their letter references EU commitments to ‘right-to-know’ and to promoting public participation in the Aarhus Convention.

Joint letter to Trade Commissioner calling for transparency:

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/open-letter-civil-society-demand.html

Contact: Linda Kaucher  for StopTTIP uk  0207 265 9307, 0777 043 5321 Website stopTTIP.net

Open Letter: Civil society demand Transparency on Transatlantic Trade Agreement

Commissioner Karel de Gucht

European Commissioner for Trade

European Commission

BE-1049 Brussels

May 19, 2014

Civil society call for full transparency about the EU-US trade negotiations

Dear Commissioner De Gucht,

The undersigned organisations are writing to express deep concerns about the lack of transparency around the ongoing trade talks on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). We are calling on you to open the negotiation process to the public, by releasing the negotiating mandate, documents submitted by the EU, and negotiating texts.

The European Commission has repeatedly stated that trade and investment between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are already highly integrated, and that the main focus of TTIP will be to achieve regulatory convergence by removing so-called non-tariff barriers to trade. This means that the outcome has much less to do with traditional trade issues such as tariffs, than with the regulations and standards that apply in the EU and the US and that affect every single aspect of citizens’ daily lives – from the quality of the food we eat to the safety of chemicals we use, the energy we consume, or the impact of financial services on each of us.

Civil society groups in the EU and in the US have voiced concerns that this might lower standards and remove safeguards across the board. They have requested greater transparency about the negotiations to address these concerns. The setting up of a stakeholder advisory group for the negotiations by the EU – although an improvement compared to previous negotiations – is far from sufficient to make the process fully transparent. Members of the group will have limited access to the negotiating texts under strict confidentiality rules, and these will remain out of reach for the rest of interested civil society groups and citizens.

The European Commission has argued that secrecy in this process is inevitable because this is a matter of international relations. If these negotiations are intended to affect domestic regulations, standards and safeguards on each side, then citizens have the right to know what is being put on the table, and how this is being negotiated. The standard legislative process in the EU allows for public scrutiny of each step of policy-making as well as full involvement of the European Parliament.

We would urge that those negotiations should comply with the same level of openness. The process should also allow for public accountability of the European Commission for the negotiating positions that it takes. Given that many of the issues under negotiation relate to the environment, this would also reflect the EU’s obligations under Article 3(7) of the Aarhus Convention to promote access to information, public participation and access to justice in international environmental decision-making processes1.

1http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.5.e.pdf 

Furthermore there are several examples of international negotiation processes, which provide a greater degree of openness to civil society than the negotiations on TTIP do, and whereby negotiating documents are disclosed.

Examples include:

- The World Trade Organisation (WTO): Even the WTO, which is regularly the subject of criticisms by civil society and member states, makes submissions made by member states in the negotiations, as well as offers, and reports by committee chairs available on its website2.

- The United Nations Framework for Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The negotiating texts and submissions from the parties are circulated before the negotiations start. Observers, including external stakeholders, attend the sessions, and can provide submissions on request by the parties3.

- The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO): Draft negotiating documents are being released all along the process. Meetings are open to the public, and webcasted4.

- The Aarhus Convention: Meetings of the governing body and its subsidiary bodies are as a rule public. Accredited observers can participate in meetings of parties and in drafting groups working in collaboration with parties to develop text during the negotiations. They have the same speaking rights as parties5.

With this letter, we would like to restate our call for openness and public accountability of the TTIP negotiations. Without full transparency, there can be no meaningful engagement of civil society representatives in the process.

Basic transparency requirements include making the following available for the public at the earliest possible stage and at regular intervals:

- The text of the EU’s negotiating mandate;

- The initial position papers tabled by the EU;

- Any further papers submitted by the EU in the course of the negotiations that detail or explain the position of the EU on the topic, and that are being used in the course of the negotiations with the other party;

- The draft versions and final versions of individual chapters as well as the whole agreement at all steps of preparation and evolution (and at least before closing the negotiations and initialling so that parliaments and the public can still assess the outcome and make comments and recommendations).

If the European Commission is serious about openness and engagement of the public, it should also proactively make the following available:

- All written communications between the European Commission and other European institutional bodies (European Parliament and Member States) on this issue;

2https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S001.aspx
3http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/ngo/items/3667.php
4http://www.wipo.int/policy/en/index.html - bodies

5 Aarhus Convention Task Force on Public Participation in International Forums, Innovations in Public Participation in International Forums – Advanced Draft, 23 February 2011, (“Innovations draft”), available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ppif/6meeting/Innovations in public participation in international forums - draft for consideration by PPIF Task Force v.1 .do

All agendas and minutes of meetings between the European Commission and the European Parliament and Member States on this issue;

- All written communications between the European Commission and third parties –including industry and lobby organisations – on this issue;

- All agendas and minutes of meetings between the European Commission and third parties – including industry and lobby organisations – on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Magda Stoczkiewicz

Director, Friends of the Earth Europe

Contact: Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe

paul@milieudfensie.nl ; +32-494-380-959

On behalf of:

Signatories: Co-initiators

11.11.11

AccessInfo Europe

ArbeiterKammer Europa (AK Europa)

Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU)

ATTAC European Network

Campagna Stop TTIP Italia

ClientEarth

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)

European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)

European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI)

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)

Finance Watch

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)

Greenpeace

Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)

LobbyControl

Powershift

Re:Common

Seattle to Brussels

SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations)

Spinwatch

Transnational Institute (TNI)

Transparency International EU (TI-EU)

Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue

Transport and Environment (T&E)

Network (AEFJN)

Afrika Kontakt

Aitec-IPAM

Alternative Informatics Turkey

An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland

Article 19

Asamblea Las Rozas

Asociación Qué hacen

Attac Austria

Attac Germany

Attac Nuernberg

Attac Paderborn

ATTAC Portugal

ATTAC SPAIN

Berlin Water Council

Berlin Water Table

BI Fracking freies Hessen

BI lebenswertes Korbach e.V.

Both ENDS’

Breadboard

BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.

Buy Responsibly Foundation

CADTM - Committee for Abolition of the Third World Debt

Campaign for Real Farming

Central America Women's Network

Central America Women's Network (CAWN)

Centre for Sustainable Development

Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska

Change Partnership

Chaos Computer Club

Climate Alliance

RED CIMAS

Civil Euro Perspective

CNCD-11.11.11

Collectif Roosevelt

Commons Network

Compass

Compassion in World Farming

Danish Ecological Council

Danish Society for a Living Sea

Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR) - German League for Nature and Environment

Diritto Di Sapere

Dutch Elasmobranch Society (NEV)

Earth Open Source

Earth Watch Media

Ecological Movement of Patras

Ecologistas en Acción

EcoNexus

Ecoropa

Ekumenicka akademie Praha

ELA – Basque Workers Solidarity

Engineering Without Borders Spain

Entrepueblos/Entrepobles/Entrepobos/Herriarte

Environmental Pillar

Esquerra Unida País Valencià

European Academy for Environmental Medicine EUROPAEM

European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ)

European Coordination Via Campesina

European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU)

European Transport Workers' Federation

Fair Trade Advocacy Office

FAIR TRADE HELLAS

FairFin

Fair–Fish International association

Fís Nua

Food & Water Europe

Forum Informationsfreiheit (FOI)

Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)

Foundation for environment and agriculture

Foundation of the "Fair Trade Coalition" (Poland)

Fracking Free Ireland

Fresh Eyes - People to People Travel cic

Friends of the Earth Czech Republic

Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland

Friends of the Earth Ireland

Friends of the Earth Malta

Gaia Foundation

Generations Futures

German NGO Forum on Environment and Development

Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock

GLOBAL 2000-Friends of the Earth Austria

Global Responsibility Platform

Global Vision Foundation

GM-free Ireland Network

GMWatch

GMWatch UK

Green Budget Europe

Green Zone Foundation (Fundacja Strefa Zieleni)

Greenpeace Saar

Grupo Portugal Parceria Transatlântica de Comércio e Investimento

Hallintovahdit ry, Finland (Administration Watch, NGO)

Hausfeld & Co LLP

Health Action International Europe

Heaven or sHell

Hegoa Instituto de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo y la Cooperación Internacional

HuertAula Comunitaria de Agroecología Cantarranas de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid

IG Übersetzerinnen Übersetzer

Iniciativa por la Soberanía Alimentaria de Madrid

Initiative bessere Zukunft

Initiative für Netzfreiheit

Institut Veblen

Institute for Ecology and Action Anthropology, infoe e.V.

Institute of Global Responsibility (IGO)

Irish Doctors Environmental Association

Iuridicum Remedium, Czech Republic

Jordens Vänner

Kalasantiner Kongregation

Katholische Jungschar Österreichs

KBW - Katholishches Bildungswerk Wien

KIFF – Keep Ireland Fracking Free

Kritische Oekologie / ifak e.V.

Latinamerikagrupperna

Les Amis de la Terre France

Lithuanian national consumer federation

Local Urban Development European Network(LUDEN)

Locale Globale

MIM Moral in Motion

Modern Poland Foundation

MyGR Technology Ltd

Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU)

NaZemi

Network Social Responsibility (NeSoVe)

NOAH - FOE Denmark

Nordic Financial Unions

Nuclear-Free Future Award

ÖBV-Via Campesina.Austria

ÖGB Europabüro

OroVerde - Tropical Forest Foundation

Panoptykon

Partido Humanista de Sevilla

Permaculture Association (Britain)

Pesticide Action Network Germany (PAN Germany)

Platform Aarde Boer Consument

Polish Fair Trade Association

Powershift Belgium

PresidioEuropa No TAV

Pro Ethical Trade Finland

Pro Natura

PROVIEHVgtM e.V.

Quaker Council for European Affairs

Red Huertos Urbanos Comunitarios de Madrid-ReHd Mad!

Request Initiative

Research & Degrowth

RESEAU ENVIRONNEMENT SANTE

RESULTS UK

RETS – (Spanish Collective, human rights)

Save Rosia Montana Madrid

Sciaena - Marine Sciences and Cooperation

Seas At Risk

Send a Cow

Slow Food

Slow Food Germany

Soil Association

SOL - People for Solidarity, Ecology and Lifestyle

Solidarity Sweden Latin America/ Solidaridad Suecia America Latina

Stichting Schaaliegasvrij Nederland

StopTTIP uk

SÜDWIND

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

The Open Knowledge Foundation

TheStory.ie

Trade Justice Movement

TransFair e.V./Fairtrade Deutschland

Treffpunkt mensch & arbeit Braunau

Tschecho-Slovakisch-Österreichisches Kontaktforum

Umweltdachverband

Umweltinstitut München e.V.

Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)

VIBE!AT – Austrian Association for Internet Users

VIDC Vienna Institute

VIER PFOTEN / FOUR PAWS

VOICE (Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment

Vrijschrift

VSF – Justicia Alimentaria Global

War on Want

Wasser in Bürgerhand

WEED - World Economy, Ecology & Development

West Country Brokers

WIDE – Network for Women´s Rights and Feminist Perspectives in Development

Working group Food Justice

World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO)

WWF European Policy Office

Za Zemiata, FoE Bulgaria

Signatories: US

Activate USA

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Bay Area Light Brigade

Center for Food Safety

Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

Center for Rights

Citizens Trade Campaign

Consumer Federation of America

Earth in Brackets

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Fight for the Future

Food & Water Watch

Friends of the Earth-US

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

OpenTheGovernment.org

SumOfUs.org

Sunlight Foundation

Signatories: Other Regions

Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Centre for Law and Democracy

Common Frontiers

IFMSA - Canada / Canadian Federation of Medical Students

Iraqi Journalists Rights Defense Association (IJRDA)

Mauritius Trade Union Congress

Migration and Sustainable Development Alliance

PAPDA - Haitian Platform to Advocate Alternative Development

Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (PIDHDD)

Signatories: International

350.org

ActionAid International

Association for Progressive Communications

Global Marshall Plan Initiative

Humane Society International

OpenMedia.org

Oxfam International