Thursday 31 July 2014

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 saidThis 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 developintegrated 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

Thursday 5 June 2014

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.

Tuesday 20 May 2014

Mass EU call for transparency in US/EU trade talks

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

As the 5th 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:
Contact: Linda Kaucher  for StopTTIP uk  0207 265 9307, 0777 043 5321 Website

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 processes

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 parties

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

- 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 parties

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;

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 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 ; +32-494-380-959

On behalf of:
Signatories: Co-initiators
AccessInfo Europe
ArbeiterKammer Europa (AK Europa)
Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU)
ATTAC European Network
Campagna Stop TTIP Italia
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)
Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)
Seattle to Brussels
SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations)
Transnational Institute (TNI)
Transparency International EU (TI-EU)
Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue
Transport and Environment (T&E)

Network (AEFJN)
Afrika Kontakt
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
Berlin Water Council
Berlin Water Table
BI Fracking freies Hessen
BI lebenswertes Korbach e.V.
Both ENDS’
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
Civil Euro Perspective
Collectif Roosevelt
Commons Network
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
Ekumenicka akademie Praha
ELA – Basque Workers Solidarity
Engineering Without Borders Spain
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–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 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.
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)
Network Social Responsibility (NeSoVe)
NOAH - FOE Denmark
Nordic Financial Unions
Nuclear-Free Future Award
ÖBV-Via Campesina.Austria
ÖGB Europabüro
OroVerde - Tropical Forest Foundation
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
Quaker Council for European Affairs
Red Huertos Urbanos Comunitarios de Madrid-ReHd Mad!
Request Initiative
Research & Degrowth
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
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
The Open Knowledge Foundation
Trade Justice Movement
TransFair e.V./Fairtrade Deutschland
Treffpunkt mensch & arbeit Braunau
Tschecho-Slovakisch-Österreichisches Kontaktforum
Umweltinstitut München e.V.
Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)
VIBE!AT – Austrian Association for Internet Users
VIDC Vienna Institute
VOICE (Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment
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
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
ActionAid International
Association for Progressive Communications
Global Marshall Plan Initiative
Humane Society International
Oxfam International