Interview with Roger Moody: social, economic and environmental impacts of mining

Interviewed by GRAIN

Roger Moody is an expert on mining and mining transnationals. He has spent years uncovering the facts about how mining companies operate. He edits the Mines and Communities website, which exposes the social, economic and environmental impacts of mining, particularly as they affect indigenous and traditional communities.



In Ecuador and India, we see indigenous communities mobilising powerfully to try and stop mining projects that they see as damaging to their way of life and belief systems. Is this part of a global trend? Have local communities become more active in recent years in the struggle to defend their territories?

RM: No question. When I started working with a global network of mining-affected communities with Minewatch back in 1990, we were working on around 30 major struggles a year. Part of the reason for this was that we didn’t know about isolated communities who hadn’t yet “internationalised” their experiences. That began to change between 1990 and 1995, as not only Minewatch but larger organisations (Amnesty, WWF, Human Rights Watch, and others) belatedly came to appreciate that mining was the big remaining global issue that they hadn’t yet effectively tackled. In 1996 the World Council of Churches held a conference on Indigenous Peoples and Mining, which 50 delegates attended. At a follow-up conference embracing the same aims, held in Manila in March 2009, 85 delegates attended – and there could have been many more. As editor of the Mines and Communities website, established in 2001, I now receive every day as many complaints from mining-affected communities as were being circulated every week a decade ago.

Vedanta is the company the Dongaria are fighting against. What do you know about Vedanta’s track record in other parts of the world?

Having examined the operations of numerous mining companies on a professional basis since the early 1990s, I’m often asked to name the “world’s worst”. Until 2007 I refused to do so. It is often the case that in some respects the big multinational miners are better than their smaller counterparts – especially in their relationships with some (I stress only some) local communities. They’ve finally learned how to win some of these on board, by banging the “sustainable development” drum and offering relatively generous impact benefit packages and access to infrastructure. On the other hand, the bigger the company, the worse the environmental damage they can do or threaten to do. For example, in a survey of tailings (mine waste) dam collapses included in my book Rocks and Hard Places, [1] the majority of the worst disasters were at mines operated by big US and European companies.

However, after Vedanta was listed on the London Stock Exchange in late 2003, I felt bound to examine this specific enterprise in more detail. Now I have no hesitation in describing it as the world’s most damaging mining company. It’s not just physical damage we’re talking about, but the entire armoury of deception – lies, breaches of faith and, above all, violations of regulations – to which the company has resorted over the past five years. While its conflict with the Dongaria Kondhs around its Nyamgiri bauxite project has seized the headlines (rightly so), I find that many people still aren’t aware of Vedanta’s egregious activities in other parts of India (in Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, in particular) or its sullied record in Zambia and Armenia. In 2007, Anil Agarwal, the executive chair of Vedanta – who, with his family, holds some 54% of the company’s share capital – set about making it a “global force”. And that is what he’s been doing, acquiring control of Sesa Goa, India’s biggest iron ore exporter in 2007; and more recently buying into another iron ore producer in Brazil, taking a significant stake in Canada’s largest (and most polluting) zinc-lead miner, and just now, in May, announcing a new copper plant for the United Arab Emirates. Potentially the most threatening of its current plans is to take over Asarco, the USA’s third biggest copper-mining company, with the worst record for the country in this particular sector. Agarwal is a malevolent genius: Vedanta identifies run-down enterprises that can be acquired on the cheap and bring in quick profits, whatever corners have to be cut and regulations overridden. It’s this one aspect of Vedanta’s game plan which was exposed by the Norwegian government’s Council on Ethics last year, when, after concluding an intensive two-year investigation, it concluded that the company was intrinsically incapable of observing even basic rules of good practice, and that the government’s pension fund should disinvest from the company (which it did).

Mining companies always claim that they can mine without damaging diversity or local farming practices. Do they ever actually achieve this?

I’m not going to generalise. It took some years before those of us working to try to limit the industry’s depredations got some positive response from some individual mining companies. And we haven’t been entirely disappointed. For example, the world’s largest “natural resource” company, BHP Billiton, promised a few years ago never again to dump its waste into rivers or on the sea bottom – and so far it has kept to that promise. Rio Tinto, on the other hand – BHP Billiton’s major global rival – hasn’t undertaken to follow that lead. Arguably, however, Rio Tinto is more aware of the consequences of mining in primary forest areas, and has done a few deals with communities of which the latter approve. At root, we’re confronting an industry whose raison d’être is to go where the minerals are, whatever the consequences to current land and water usage, and to extract profit from irreplaceable resources. Nor do they actively promote recycling and reuse of mined metals, for that would threaten their fundamental mission. Judging from the unceasing flow of justifiable complaints that pass over my desk each day, it’s impossible to conclude that mining practices have substantially improved over the past two decades. Indeed some – such as those used in the expansion of open-pit mining for copper, nickel and gold – have demonstrably got worse.

It is too early to tell whether the communities in Ecuador and India will be successful. But are other communities managing to stop mining projects or to close them down? Can you give us some examples?

Yes they are, though it’s difficult at the present time to distinguish between projects put on hold because of the current lack of debt finance and those which have been abandoned, possibly indefinitely, because the companies know they’ll face continuing, possibly accelerating, resistance. In 2002, PriceWaterhouseCooper surveyed around 30 large mining companies, asking them if they’d been forced to abandon proposed projects because of external opposition – and if so, what type of opposition. The results were surprising: more than 20 had shelved proposals, and the most important factor was, indeed, community opposition. In the past year, BHP Billiton have abandoned some projects; Rio Tinto has sold off others. In most cases, we can’t claim that such proposals have definitely been ditched because the company has recognised the legitimacy of the criticisms; almost always they will cite “economic constraints” instead. We can be sure, however, and increasingly so, that the corporate risks posed by critics, and active resistance at ground level, are factored into company assessments of a project’s viabibility. We know this because the companies are telling us that it is the case.

Awareness is growing worldwide about the gravity of the climate crisis. Is this beginning to change public perceptions? Maybe the ‘development agenda’, where economic progress is valued before all else, is beginning to be challenged? Are people becoming more aware of the huge environmental and social cost of destructive development projects?

We’ve several steps to go before the contribution of mining to greenhouse gas emissions is widely recognised. It’s only been in the past couple of years that UK climate change activists seem to have finally recognised that coal burning is the single biggest culprit. Steel manufacturing comprises perhaps the second biggest contributor to adverse global warming (between 3% and 7%, depending on which figures you believe), with cement production running a close third. If you calculate (few have) the greenhouse gas emissions consequent on burning uranium (ridiculously touted as a “clean” fuel), then the use of mined minerals constitutes, collectively, the biggest climate villain (and that’s without adding in the contribution – which is certainly not negligible – of constructing new mines and power plants to run them). There is also as yet little recognition – certainly at a policy level – that the hopes invested in carbon capture and storage from existing and future coal-fired power plants are false.

The world is in the grip of contradictory trends. On the one hand, we have ever bigger corporations laying claim to larger and larger tracts of land for the industrial production of food and biofuels and for mining, and, on the other, we have increasing community resistance over local projects. What is needed to make resistance more effective?

For a start, largely northern-based NGOs should stop laying down prescriptions; both the analysis and implementation of self-chosen strategies by communities resisting “development” have shot well ahead of many of those offered by desk-bound pontiffs elsewhere. In fact, by challenging specific projects (whether it be a coal mine, a biofuels plantation or a wildlife reserve) these communities are transforming the way the rest of us ought to think about “development”. In my opinion we should leave them to their own devices, while always being ready to offer support when asked (such as trying to cut off investment in companies like Vedanta, which mostly derives from European and US banks). The problem in determining the best strategy is not one, in my experience, that besets communities “at the rock face”. The retrievable, experiential, history of resisting bad mines goes back several hundred years (especially in Latin America). Increasingly I feel that it’s those of us outside the field of battle who don’t know what to do.

Going further:

The Mines and Communities website

[1] Roger Moody, Rocks and Hard Places – the Globalisation of Mining, Zed Books, London, 2007

Keep export option, build green city: Expat experts suggest at discussion on coal

Refayet Ullah Mirdha, back from Tangail, The Daily Star, June 19, 2009

A panel of non-resident Bangladeshi experts yesterday suggested that the government formulate a coal policy with an option to export the surplus fossil fuel.

It talked about merits and demerits of open-cut and underground methods of coal extraction, but did not recommend any.

At a post-workshop press conference at Jamuna resort in Tangail, the energy experts said the government should build 'green cities' near the coal mines to ensure locals are safe from environmental hazards.

They also stressed the need for arranging alternative means of livelihood for the people affected by coal mining.

Nafis Ahmed, a panel member, said they have asked the government to develop a database through geographic information system for a 30-year land management in the mining localities.

"We have also suggested regular dialogue between the government and experts on protection of the environment from the perils of extraction," he added.

The panel observed that the country would be able to have four 500-megawatt power plants if coal mining at Barapukuria and Fulbaria runs on full throttle.

It said it favours exporting the coal in excess of the domestic demand because extraction, once underway, cannot be stopped.

The experts drew up a draft coal policy during the workshop titled 'Brainstorming with Non-Resident Bangladeshi Experts on Coal Mining in Bangladesh'.

The four-day group work, which began on June 15, was organised by the energy ministry and Petrobangla, the state body mandated to oversee production, transmission and marketing of gas, oil and other mineral resources.

In the draft, the expatriates' team suggested securing energy security for 20 years, provided the GDP growth would hover around 8 percent a year.

M Khalequzzaman, one of the specialists, said that while sketching out the policy, they focussed on energy security, institutional and legal framework, resource mobilisation, environment, health and safety issues, and resettlement and rehabilitation of those who would be affected.

Alongside its own coffers, he noted, the government should count on stock markets, public-private partnerships, banks and security bonds for funds.

Mohammad Mohsin, secretary of the energy ministry, said they would discuss the suggestions at the secretary-level committee to include those in the government's draft coal policy.

"The government wants a coal policy as soon as possible. However, I cannot give you an exact time by which the proposed policy would be finalised," he told reporters.

Muktadir Ali, acting chairman of Petrobangla, said he has already recommended export of 2 lakh tonnes of surplus coal produced at the Barapukuria coal mine.

Among others, Toufiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, power and energy adviser to the prime minister, was present at the press conference.

Experts’ suggest coal export in ‘special circumstances’

Staff Correspondent, NewAge, June 19, 2009

The non-resident Bangladeshi ‘experts’ have recommended that the government should keep open in the coal policy an option for coal export in ‘special circumstances’.

They have also recommended not banning or favouring any coal mining method in the policy and stressed that a mining method is selected for ‘maximum extraction of coal’ considering environment.

The recommendations came in the four-day coal mining workshop that ended on Thursday at Jamuna Resort in Tangail.

Explaining special circumstances for coal export, the coordinator of the ‘experts’ Dr Nasif Ahmed, an expert on networking of people, told reporters in a press briefing that if any surplus coal remained stockpiled for days, there would be no alternative but to export them.

‘If two out of four coal-based power plants go out of order and the coal cannot be stored, it can be exported in this circumstance. This kind of situation has already become obvious in the Barapukuria coal field,’ he said.

Petrobangla chairman Muktedir Ali told reporters they had requested the government to allow export of two lakh tonnes of coal from the Barapkuria coal mine as they could not store more coals at present.

‘We have 2.5 lakh tonnes of coal stockpiled at Barapkuria as the 250MW coal-based power plant is not operating in its full capacity. The field is producing around 3000-4000 tonnes coal a day. There is no more space for storing coal,’ he said.

Muktedir said that they had already invited local tender to sell the coal but did not get satisfactory response.

Professor M Khalequzzaman from Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, USA, said they thought Bangladesh was not in a position to export any energy resources like coal as it was facing energy shortage.

He said they could not reach on any ‘specific agreement’ on coal mining method but they reached a consensus that mining method should focus maximum extraction keeping environment into consideration.

Khalequzzaman read out the recommendations that included expansion of use of coal beyond power generation, building institutional capability and develop skilled manpower on coal by developing ‘Coal Bangla,’ a national organisation.

He said the environmental quality standard had to be formulated for coal extraction.

Nafis claimed that they had given their independent opinions on the coal policy.

The government gave them the latest version of coal policy, which was formulated by the interim government by changing the draft policy finalised by the committee headed by former BUET vice chancellor Abdul Matin Patwari, before the eight NRB ‘experts’.

The panel also said Bangladesh would be able to run four power plants each with 500MW capacity if the coal could be extracted from both the Barapukuria and the Fulbaria coal mines.

They suggested mobilising fund for coal extraction from government exchequer, stock market, public-private partnership initiatives, bank loans and security bonds.

At the press briefing, energy secretary Mohammad Mohsin said, ‘The government wants that the coal policy is formulated as soon as possible. But I cannot say exactly when the proposed coal policy will be finalised.’

Expat experts begin reviewing coal issues: Barapukuria mine operating amid high risk, they observe

The Daily Star, June 18, 2009

While dissecting the draft coal policy at a four-day brainstorming session, a panel of expatriate and local experts emphasised on health and environmental aspects in finalising the policy that should additionally be trimmed down.

They said that the policy should dictate that health and environment should represent at least two percent of any coal mining cost.

According to sources present at the brainstorming session being held at the Jamuna Resort from June 15, the experts agreed on the draft's suggestion on forming a “Coal Bangla” like Petrobangla to spearhead activities in the coal sector.

Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission (Berc) will have an inspector of mines as a tool to regulate the mining standards from geological perspective, while the Department of Environment would deal with the surface environment, they said at the session that concludes today.

The Petrobangla and the energy ministry invited the expatriates at this programme to stimulate a fresh perspective on the draft coal policy, land subsidence at the Barapukuria coal mine site and human resettlement issues.

“The discussions here have been highly academic. The non-resident Bangladeshis are not related to any private company working in Bangladesh and they have not been involved with the drafting of the policy in the past. They are not debatable, though some quarters are trying to make the people suspicious about this session,” said an official of Petrobangla present at the discussions.

The discussants felt that the draft coal policy had a lot of chapters not relevant as policy. “We all agreed that this document should be confined within policy matters,” said a source.

The draft also seeks to ensure coal reserve to meet 50 years of demand. The discussants felt that it was not realistic as, in the course of time, there would be many unpredictable developments that would demand changes in the strategy.

The country did not have adequate data on proven coal reserve except for the case of Barapukuria and Phulbari deposits and therefore it should take up extensive feasibility study of other discovered coal deposits.

Bangladesh should mark a mining zone and begin exploration extensively, they said.

The draft policy projected coal demands mainly on the basis of power sector requirements. But the policy should take into cognisance other sectors' requirements.

In the high-energy demand scenario, the experts find no reason to allow export of coal. However in some peculiar conditions, the provision of export should be kept there. For instance, due to power plant failure in Barapukuria, the coal mine there now has so much surplus coal that these should be exported or removed to other places to ensure safety.

To develop the coal sector huge resources are required. This resource may be derived from public private partnership, share market, issuance of bonds, loans from development partners, leasing etc.

Besides the session discussed about financial incentives for investors and gathering of baseline data from the coal deposit areas.

Double PhD holder from UK and Australia on minerals, Dr. Nasir Ahmed is acting as the coordinator of the expatriate group. Other expatriate experts are: Dr Saad Andalib, Professor and the Chair of Marketing, Pennsylvania State University, USA, Dr Khalequzzaman, head of Geology Department of Lock Haven University, Pennsylvania, US based environmentalist Dr Sarwat Chowdhury, mining engineer working in Queensland coal and iron mines Masud Hossain, and Melbourne based Global Positioning System and Global Information System expert Sultana Nasrin.

The chairmen of Petrobangla and Power Development Board (PDB), members from Geological Survey of Bangladesh, Bureau of Mineral Development, Barapukuria Coal Mine Company, Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Company Ltd, Dr Hossain Monsur of the Geology Department of Dhaka University, and representatives from the Rajshahi University and the Chemical Engineering Department of the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (Buet) are participating in the session.

NRB experts divide over mining method, export of coal

Staff Correspondent, NewAge, June 17, 2009

The non-resident Bangladeshi experts are divided over the coal mining method, rate of royalty and coal export issue, said the sources present at the four-day workshop on coal policy that began at the Jamuna Resort in Tangail on Monday.


‘There was a clear division among the NRB experts who came from the USA and Australia. Majority of the experts, came from Australia, were in favour of open pit mining method, fixing low royalty rate and keeping the coal export issue open,’ said the sources.
 Eight NRB experts are attending the workshop on the coal mining method and coal policy,’ organised by the state-owned Petrobangla.


Two experts, came from the USA, highlighted the impact of open pit mining of coal on the environment and people, presenting the examples of the USA.
 They also opined that Bangladesh should not allow export of coal to secure its future energy reserve.


There was a ‘clear motive’ in projecting the underground mining at the Barapukuria coal field as a complete failure by the experts from Australia and their choice for open pit mining method, the sources said.
 Moreover they claimed that if the royalty rate was fixed at a higher rate, the cost of power generation using coal would get increased.


They also recommended that the coal policy should not impose ban on the coal export from Bangladesh.


The NRB experts are reviewing the draft coal policy that was prepared by an advisory committee, headed by former vice-chancellor of BUET, Abdul Matin Patwari.


The Patrwari committee recommended ban on coal export, development of coal fields under the leadership of the state-run companies, fixing royalty rate based on some criteria like coal price in the international market and operation of a small scale open pit mine at Barapukuria field to see the feasibility of such mining method in Bangladesh before going to apply it in other fields.


‘It seems that the workshop will adopt the recommendations of the experts, loyal to the UK-Australian company Asia Energy, who opposed the recommendations of the Patwari committee,’ the sources said adding that the ‘experts’ would come up with a complete set of recommendations today.


The National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port, and different rights groups are protesting at holding of the workshop by the government terming the ‘Jamuna Resort meeting’ a conspiracy to allow the controversial Asia Energy to extract coal through open pit mining method at Phulbari field and export of coal.