New report reveals how UK companies get away with human rights abuses overseas as Parliamentary Inquiry is launched

Monday 4 May 2009, by The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition

UK companies that have committed human rights abuses overseas far too often get away with it, a new report launched today (1 May) reveals.

Reviewing examples from Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Georgia and Nigeria. the report, entitled “The Reality of Rights: Barriers to accessing remedies when business operates beyond borders”, finds that in cases of alleged human rights violations, systemic failures have too often led to victims not receiving adequate redress.

Although previous research in this area has highlighted legal obstacles to victims seeking justice, this is the first comprehensive study of the very real political, social and economic obstacles that prevent victims receiving adequate remedy.

The report’s key findings include:

• Governments’ desire to attract foreign investment undermines their protection of the rights of those affected by the investment;

• A serious lack of trust in the independence of legal systems undermines victims’ desire to pursue claims;

• Victims are pressured not to act and those that still want to often can’t afford to.

The report concludes that the UK Government has a responsibility to ensure UK companies do not continue to get away with violating human rights abroad. A new UK Commission on Business, Human Rights & The Environment is proposed to provide guidance to companies on what standards they must adhere to when operating abroad, and act as a forum for hearing and resolving allegations of infringements.

The findings of this report will be submitted to The Joint Committee on Human Rights, who have just launched an Inquiry into Business and Human Rights (deadline for submissions today, 1 May).

Hannah Ellis, Coordinator of The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition said:

“Too many UK companies are breaching human rights when they operate abroad Our report reveals why so many companies continue to get away with it.

“The Government has no excuse not to act now. We believe the solution is a new UK Commission for Business, Human Rights & The Environment. We hope it will be discussed urgently by the Government..”

Mary Robinson, President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative and former President of Ireland, who contributed the foreword to the new report, said:

“The innovative approach this report puts forward is a significant contribution to ongoing debates which should be taken seriously by governments and businesses committed to responsible action at home and abroad.”

For more information, please contact: • The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition: Hannah Ellis. +44 (0) 207 566 1601. +44 (0)7952 876 929 Hannah.ellis@corporate-responsibility.org www.corporate-responsibility.org. • The London School of Economics and Political Science: Sue Windebank. + 44 (0) 20 7849 4624 S.Windebank@lse.ac.uk www.lse.ac.uk

Download the report: The Reality of Rights: Barriers to accessing remedies when business operates beyond borders

Call to banish Asia Energy Corporation

BDNews24, Sun, Jan 11th, 2009 9:12 pm BdST

A citizens’ group has demanded Asia Energy Corporation be banished from Bangladesh, open-pit coalmine banned and seven-point deal with Fulbari dwellers honoured.

“In the wake of public protests, the then government reached an accord with the inhabitants of Fulbari, and the present prime minister Sheikh Hasina backed that deal and demanded its immediate implementation,” Prof. Anu Muhammad said on Sunday in a written statement at a briefing at National Press Club.

“That deal has yet to be implemented,” said Anu, member secretary of the national committee to protect oil, gas, mineral resources, power, ports.

“The already-discovered Jalalabad gas field has been given away to US oil company Chevron illogically,” the statement said.

The committee demanded that all past ministers, bureaucrats, consultants and businessmen-agents who were involved in plundering national resources be given exemplary punishment.

“We want this government not to patronise or protect multinational plunderers, lobbyists of these companies and their commission agents,” the statement said.

Changes in Equity, and Derivatives Trading of GCM Resources Plc Shares

Since early October – and not unexpectedly – hedge funds (read vulture funds) have bought into GCM shares in a fashion which has markedly (if not dramatically) altered the company’s current equity ownership.

Now, by far the biggest registered shareholders are companies controlled by Christian Leone and his US hedge funds, the Luxor Capital (Management) Group. Leone himself holds 12.56% and the Luxor Group 28.63% - more than 40% of GCM’s equity. Leone is also (or was until recently) an analyst for Goldman Sachs.

Meanwhile, another hedge fund, New York-based Hound Partners LLC, has acquired 3.10% of GCM, of which around 16% are in the form of shorted CFDs (everyone should know by now what these are, since they have widely featured

As among the most “toxic” of instruments used for securitisation, and off-book dumping, of unacceptable debt). Thus, along with the holdings of L-R Capital partners (owned by Leon Levy) at 3.80%; Southpoint Capital Advisors (3.14%);

Ospraie (3.10%) and Capital Group Companies (3.07%) more than half of GCM is now in the hands of US hedge funds.

Polo Resources maintains its 29.72% interest, and Credit Suisse, UBS and Fidelity International haven’t moved.

GCM’s share price is now lower than it has ever been

You may be interested to know that GCM Resources Plc’s share price is now lower than it has ever been:

Visit GCM's website to see the downward curve: http://www.gcmplc.com/investor_relations/share_price.php

Reflections on Phulbari Coal Project

NewAge, September 14, 2008

The Phulbari coal deposit is very likely among the largest in the world, with a capacity to produce 15 million tonnes of coal per year. Then why would the original licensee, BHP, abandon it…asks Nazrul Islam*, a former official of the mining company

In recent months there has been a lot of talk again about Phulbari coal deposit and Asia Energy Corporation's open-cut mining proposal to the government of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party Government had decided not to proceed with Asia Energy's proposal after vehement protests by local people and the deaths of peaceful protesters in 2006.

Everyone including myself thought that the open-cut mining proposition had been abandoned forever. It is unfortunate for Bangladesh and its people that like Bangladeshi politics, the same old faces and ideas, resurface after lapses of some period. I have been keenly observing different points of view expressed by many individuals within and outside the country. I have also seen the AEC's video presentation depicting what would be the benign visual nature of things after of the project. It is a good piece of advertisement material for selling a product to allure unsuspecting customers. Technical and scientific nature of the project need a different approach.

BHP had an agreement with Bangladesh government for coal exploration and possible subsequent open-cut mine development. One simple question is this: Why would a world renowned international corporation like BHP that has the expertise of surface-mining equal to none in the world leave despite securing such a deal? Almost ten years of negotiations, exploration and spending millions of dollars, BHP discovered Phulbari Coal Deposit in 1997 and left soon after. There must be some overwhelming reason for abandoning such a large coal mine, possible one of the larges in the world, with a production capacity of 15 million tonnes per year, at least according to the AEC's proposal. To understand this, one needs to know the background of BHP's involvement in Bangladesh. Here, I am in a position to fill in the gap.

I was responsible to get BHP involved in Bangladesh coal project. It took 18 long years of sustained effort that started in the seventies. I got a job and immigrated to Australia in September 1970 after resigning from the Pakistan Geological Survey. In early February 1971, I joined Utah Development Company, the biggest coal miner in Australia as a project geologist for coal exploration. Utah's then exploration manager, Oliver Warin, and chief of coal exploration, Ted Milligan, were sympathetic to the Bangladeshi independence movement. During nine months of the War of Independence, and for long afterwards, both of them kept in touch with the movement that I was involved in to mobilise support of the Australian government and the people for the independence of Bangladesh and subsequent recognition.

The initial rapport and understanding cemented a long-term friendship among us and these two became friends of Bangladesh after its independence. In fact the first Utah-BHP delegation to Bangladesh, headed by its senior vice-president, Oliver Warin, had a meeting with the then secretary of energy & mineral resources, Shafiul Alam and his geological experts. Warin, in his speech, mentioned his contact and indirect involvement with Bangladesh since 1971.

Ted, a renowned coal geologist, had an office in Canberra for coal research to locate areas of possible coal deposits in different continents. We often talked about the Jamalganj coal deposit where I worked in 1961-62. I did some literature research on Bangladesh coal based on very limited data I had in my possession at the time: borehole data of Jamalganj, reports on geophysical surveys of seismic, aeromagnetic and gravity by oil companies and the Geological Surveys of Pakistan and India. Based on this study, I could infer that there was a possibility of locating coal deposits at shallow depths in the hidden Rangpur Saddle where graben or half graben structure could have been developed in northwest Bangladesh. Ted agreed with my interpretation.

In late seventies Utah was heavily involved with coal exploration in Australia and many other countries resulted with the discovery of many deposits. I was the senior project geologist at the time and was responsible for the discovery of two coalfields in Australia that earned me professional respect. I was always conscious of my obligation to Bangladesh, the newborn country to whom I owe everything, and wanted to do something tangible in economic development of Bangladesh. I asked Ted to convince Utah's management to permit coal exploration in Bangladesh. He readily agreed and others concurred.

I wrote a letter on behalf of the company in 1979, to Kazi Fazlur Rahman, energy secretary of Bangladesh, expressing coal exploration interest by Utah. This was before Barapukuria was discovered. Bangladesh did not have mining rules for coal exploration by foreign companies at the time. And the secretary's reply was that Utah might come with a proposal to discuss with the government of Bangladesh. The company did not feel enthusiastic enough at that moment to venture into uncertain territory with non-existent mining rules as well as not having enough available geological information. Moreover, the company was heavily involved in coal exploration in Indonesia.

In the meantime by acquisition, BHP became Utah-BHP. In 1983, I left Utah-BHP and started my own geological consultancy. I used to have regular contact with friends and former colleagues. After discovery of Barapukuria in 1984, I was able to get my former colleagues and friends in Utah/BHP interested in Bangladesh coal exploration again.

With my assistance as its geological consultant, BHP started negotiations with the government of Bangladesh in 1987 and continued till 1994 when an agreement was signed on August 20, 1994. I was very much aware of the environmental consequences of coal mining in Bangladesh, even before approaching my colleagues. I got the assurance from Ted Milligan and Oliver Warin that the company would adhere to strict environmental studies similar to Australian requirements if coal deposit discovered in Bangladesh.

BHP was interested in open-cut mining on consideration of several factors. Economics of development costs versus profits by extracting most of the coal, and expertise it had with so many open-cut mines. Ted Milligan took an unusual step to become the project manager of Bangladsh Coal and lived in Dhaka for three years off and on. He never really involved himself so directly in case of other countries. Both Ted and I were not hopeful of finding coal at a shallow depth of around 100 metres that was BHP's benchmark. But we were hoping that BHP's management board would change its decision if a large enough deposit could be discovered and opt for underground mining. My own thinking was that even if BHP left then Bangladesh would get a coalfield discovered free of cost without spending a taka. And the country would then be in a better position to develop, by itself, an underground coal mine in the near future with the help of international financial institutions. We knew BHP would not be able to fulfil environmental requirements similar to Australian standards for strip mining at more than 150metres below the ground.

BHP could not locate a shallow coal deposit around 100m depth; the Phulbari deposit is much deeper between 150m and 260m. BHP knew very well that an open-cut mine at such depth would need multi-dimensional long-term environmental studies besides tackling geological and engineering problems. Considering flood-prone deltaic region having numerous rivers with heavy monsoon rainfall, it is easy to understand that it would be rather impossible to pass through environmental regulations of any country, not to speak of comparable Australian standards.

Moreover, BHP did not want to create another environmental disaster like Ok-Tedi Copper Mine in Papua New Guinea where it had to quickly abandon the mine and paid hefty compensation to the surrounding inhabitants. The poisonous mine water seepages contaminated the nearby river and destroyed everything downstream. It is obvious to any professional person that open-cut coal mining in Bangladesh is far more complex and needs close scrutiny.

In fact, after taking over from BHP, AEC was considering submission of a proposal to the government of Bangladesh for underground mining as the logical option. A copy of that 'Draft Proposal' has come to my hand. It is intriguing, why and how that position has been changed dramatically. Moreover, AEC's (now Global Coal Management) surface mining proposal has a marked difference of 80 per cent export component to that of the agreement of BHP where export was considered for excess quantity after satisfying the need of Bangladesh. This is a vital argument in favour of Bangladesh's energy needs and national interest. Everyone knows Bangladesh's energy need is very acute and the future economic development is very much dependant on this. A new company like AEC that does not have any mining expertise wants to exploit this situation and ask the government and people of Bangladesh to jump on a mirage like a thirsty wonderer in a desert. In spite of global warming, underground mining is a possible and logical proposition for Bangladesh, considering that clean coal technology may be developed in the near future. Underground mine would not produce enough coal to meet Bangladesh's needs. But it would still provide some energy for the country and avoid making manmade disasters for generations to endure. Bangladesh cannot afford the luxury to take that sort of a gamble.

It will not be wise for the Bangladesh government to make a hasty decision for such a complex matter related with vital economic, geological and environmental consequences. My involvement in this project was due to a sense of gratitude to the mother country. If it brings harm instead of benefits for the people of Bangladesh, I would not be able to forgive myself. This is the reason I have taken this step to explain myself in order to solicit forgiveness from those who may have suffered in the recent past and others in the future if such eventuality arises.

*Nazrul Islam is a former geological consultant for BHP's Bangladesh Coal Project.

Asia Energy behind coal mine advocates

Tanim Ahmed, NewAge, August 26, 2008. Dhaka, Bangladesh

UK-based Asia Energy has been behind the organised campaign of a group of civil society fronts in favour of swift coal extraction in northern Bangladesh, reveals a New Age investigation.


These fronts, platforms and associations, were initiated and supported by the subsidiary of Global Coal Management Resources to demonstrate public support for its proposal for an open pit coal mine stretching 65 square kilometres at Phulbari of Dinajpur, countering strong national and local opposition.


Two years ago on August 26, several thousand people took to the streets protesting against the proposed open pit mining, which was feared to displace over one lakh people and affect the life and livelihood of another two lakh people.


Three people were killed and dozens others injured as law enforcers opened fire on the protesters on the day in 2006.
 According to Asia Energy, Phulbari coal mine would produce some 520 million tonnes of coal over 35 years and displace 50,000 people.

The associations or platforms, particularly active in the northern districts in advocating swift coal extraction include the Greater Rangpur-Dinajpur Business Development Forum, comprising different business bodies and businessmen, the Greater Dinajpur District NGO Alliance for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, evidently an association of 30 local non-governmental organisations and North Bengal Mineral Resources Reporters’ Forum, an association of journalists.


Office bearers of these forums deny their links with Asia Energy and claim to be promoting mineral extraction for the benefit of the northern region that has remained neglected for long, and reduction of disparity compared to the rest of the country.
 The business development forum was founded by Nazrul Islam, a former executive chairman of Bangladesh’s Board of Investment, and a retired additional secretary of the government. Nazrul continues to serve as the forum’s chairman. But he is also the executive director for Asia Energy Bangladesh.


Nazrul insisted that there was no conflict of interest in the two offices he holds. ‘I have been involved in such forums and associations for a long time,’ he said mentioning a number of high offices he held in the past on district committees in northern Bangladesh.


Rafiqul Islam, president of Dinajpur Chamber of Commerce, also a member of the business development forum said it was entirely driven by Nazrul, who previously served Asia Energy in the capacity of a consultant.


Rafiqul had refused to read out a pre-drafted speech handed to him at a public meeting of the forum on May 2 this year in Dinajpur. ‘I found it was contrary to our national interests.’ He told the meeting that an open pit coal mine was not acceptable considering the situation of Bangladesh. ‘We must not compromise fertile, arable land for coal extraction.’


The alliance of non-governmental organisations apparently comprising of 36 organisations, maintains a Dhaka office with the same address as that of Asia Energy.


The web pages—www.gddna.com and www.rangpur-dinajpur-forum.com—have identical IP addresses and other web hosting details, suggesting that the two are run and operated from a single source.


Hamidul Haque, chairman of the alliance, also chief executive of the Palli Gano Sanghati Parishad, said the association’s contact person in Dhaka is one Ahsan Habib, who happens to be Asia Energy’s manager for equipment, mobilisation and support. Hamid said Ahsan provided the alliance with all the necessary support for maintaining and uploading their NGO alliance website.


He said the platform, similar to the other platforms, was not in any way suggesting that Asia Energy be given the contract for Phulbari. ‘If they do get involved however, we will become involved in handling the environmental projects to mitigate the adverse impacts on environment and agriculture.’ But he denied that the association had any links with Asia Energy.


Hamid claimed the association ‘intends to accelerate the utilisation of natural resources including minerals as available in the Dinajpur region for the holistic and sustainable development involving the community’.


But an email sent by alliance to the Asian Development Bank gives a proof of its bias towards Asia Energy. It requested the lending agency to ‘reconsider its decision regarding financing the Phulbari Coal Project’ after it was reported in the media that the lending agency’s private sector division had decided to pull out of the project, thus withdrawing a $100 million political risk guarantee.


The email, dated April 10 this year, to relevant high officials of the lending agency including the ADB president and the country head, reads, ‘We are very much disappointed with this news. To us, this decision will not help the people of the country rather lead the energy security of the country in a vulnerable position. Because Phulbari Coal Project would be a major development [work] in the north-west Bangladesh.’


Denying all allegations of driving the platforms, Nazrul said, ‘Asia Energy is absolutely transparent. We have no involvement with these groups.’ Regarding an Asia Energy staff providing technical support, he said, ‘I am not aware of such a thing. I do not think it is indeed the case.’

Open letter to financial institutions investing in GCM Resources Plc regarding the Phulbari Coal Project, Bangladesh

August 2008

110 organizations from 31 countries have endorsed an open letter to the private investors of GCM Resources Plc declaring solidarity with community representatives in Bangladesh regarding investment in the Phulbari Coal Project. The letter was sent to UBS, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Fidelity Investments.

Dear Investor:

We are writing to you in solidarity with community representatives in Bangladesh regarding your institutionís involvement in the Phulbari coal mine, otherwise known as the Phulbari Coal Project. Community representatives opposing the project cannot be identified due to fear of recrimination under the current military backed government in Bangladesh.

We understand that your institution has obtained or is managing over a 3 percent shareholding in Global Coal Management Resources plc. (GCM) which, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, is primarily focused and committed to the development of the Phulbari Coal Project in Bangladesh (GCM 2007 annual report).

With this letter, we formally bring to your attention the fact that the project, and therefore your financial institution through its shareholding in GCM, is associated with numerous human rights violations and risks future abuses if project development continues.

Such abuses violate or risk violation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and in many cases do not meet standards under the Equator Principles, which are widely considered best practice for mitigating social and environmental impacts in project finance.

Although the Equator Principles do not technically apply to equity financing for parent companies, several Equator banks apply the Principles to non-project finance transactions where use of proceeds is known. In the case of GCM, it is very likely that new capital (through share issues, for example) will be deployed towards the mine; for example, from June-December 2007, GCM spent £940,000 exploring and developing the Phulbari project (Interim Report for the six months ended 31 December 2007). Especially given GCMís difficulties in obtaining project loans for the mine, equity financiers such as your institution take on a greater role and responsibility in financing this project, and the environmental and human rights abuses that are occurring.

Following is a list of some of the human rights abuses associated with the Phulbari coal project, including reference to selected applicable international standards that have been or have the potential of being violated:

1) On 26 August 2006, the Bangladesh Rifles, paramilitary force, indiscriminately discharged firearms into a crowd of over 50,000 residents who were demonstrating in opposition to the mine project. This shooting resulted in the deaths of three people, including a fourteen year old boy, and left over 100 people injured.

Right to life, liberty and security of person, Article 3, UDHR
Right to freedom of opinion and expression, Article 19, UDHR
Right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, Article 20, UDHR

2) In February 2007, Mr. S.M. Nuruzzaman, one of the leaders of the social movement in opposition to the project, was falsely arrested and subsequently tortured. The Bangladeshi ëjoint forcesí were reportedly directed by officials of Asia Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Global Coal Management, to arrest Mr. Nuruzzaman.

Right to the freedom from torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 5, UDHR
Right to equality before the law, Article 7, UDHR

3) Since January 2007, Bangladesh has been under a state of ìEmergency Rule.î Through its project dealings with the Bangladeshi military regime, GCM is providing implicit support to a military- backed interim government which has suspended civil rights, including public gatherings. Though the government is currently under a process of relaxing some of these rules that violate civil liberties, it continues to be difficult for communities in the Phulbari region to express themselves freely regarding the project.

Right to participate in government, and requirement of democratic elections, Article 21, UDHR
Right to freedom of opinion and expression, Article 19, UDHR
Right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, Article 20, UDHR

4) As demonstrated by the magnitude of community opposition to the project, GCM has not met the principle of free, prior and informed consultation and has not incorporated concerns of the community into project planning. GCM has not disseminated a draft Environmental Impact Assessment, Resettlement Plan, and Indigenous Peoples Development Plan to community members in an accessible form, for non-literate community memebes, or in the Bangla language.

Consultation and Disclosure, Principle 5, Equator Principles

5) With regards to the economic and physical displacement of an estimated 2,200 indigenous persons, GCM has not made any significant efforts towards obtaining their free, prior and informed consent to the project activities or to displacement, in direct violation of the right of all peoples to self-determination by virtue of which they can freely determine political status, and pursue economic, social and cultural development. Failure to consult adequately and to seek and obtain consent from indigenous peoples is in contravention of the spirit and letter of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Self-determination, Shared Article 1, ICCPR and ICESCR and Article 3, UNDRIP
Free, prior and informed consent for any relocation, Article 10, UNDRIP
Collective rights to lands and territories, Article 26, UNDRIP
Control over development priorities, Article 32, UNDRIP

6) Expected environmental damage due to the open-caste mine will result in a massive reduction of ground water, threatening the availability of potable water and irrigation for agriculture much beyond the mine life of 30 plus years. Furthermore, without proper study, field tests, and appropriate mitigation, acid-mine-drainage is likely to contaminate both soil and water in the project area. Experts contend that adequate precautions against acid-mine drainage in Northwest Bangladesh for a mine the size of Phulbari will detrimentally affect the economic viability of the project. These issues have not been adequately addressed in project documents, despite concern raised by the community in this regard.

Right to an adequate standard of living, right to health and well-being, Article 25, UDHR

7) The Phulbari Coal Project is expected to relocate at least 50,000 people, although some studies indicate that the physical displacement impacts will include well over 100,000 people. Additional displacement impacts will be felt by those who are economically displaced by the project and by host communities which will be expected to absorb the tens of thousands of displaced peoples. There is currently no plan to replace agricultural land and there is no available information on how livelihoods of the displaced will be restored. Loss of livelihood will inevitably result in impoverishment of displaced people, which could lead to the risk of death and poor health, in addition to the lost economic base. Concerns expressed by community members regarding the inadequacy of information about and deficiencies of plans for resettlement, compensation, rehabilitation and employment opportunities have not been satisfied.

Action Plan and Management System, Principle 4, Equator Principles
Right to an adequate standard of living, right to health and well-being, Article 25, UDHR
Right to adequate housing, Article 11(1), CESCR

Over 80 percent of the land expected to be taken for this project is currently used for farming and Phulbari is considered the agricultural breadbasket for the country. Moreover, the Phulbari region remains one of the few areas in Bangladesh that does not face annual flooding. There is no information or study on whether or how food supplies will be replaced and the subsequent impacts on food security within Bangladesh.

Right to an adequate standard of living, right to health and well-being, Article 25, UDHR
Right to be free from hunger, Article 11(2), CESCR

GCM and the government of Bangladesh have made numerous public statements that, despite the human rights abuses associated with this project, show they are committed to moving forward with the mine.

Through its investments in GCM, either on its own account or on behalf of clients, and since the company has established a special purpose entity to develop the Phulbari Coal Mine project, your institution is giving consent and support for the continued development of this flawed project. To take no action, is an indication in support of GCM and the Phulbari Coal Mine project.

Due to the gravity, range and proportions of human rights abuses associated with the project and dealings in Bangladesh under the current political structure, and taking into account the interests of those human rights which are at risk, we respectfully request your financial institution and any other group members which may be involved in this venture, to commence an exit strategy to cease provision of all financial services to the company and divest all GCM shares over which you have control.

We are pleased to provide you with more information upon request. For comments or questions, please contact the International Accountability Project at iap@accountabilityproject.org.

This letter is endorsed by the following organizations:

1. Association “For Sustainable Human Development”, NGO in Special Consultative Status with UN ECOSOC, Armenia

2. AID/WATCH, Australia

3. Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc, NSW, Australia

4. Courthouse Climate Action Group, Australia

5. Friends of the Earth, Australia

6. Jubilee, Australia

7. Locals Into Victoriaís Environment, Australia

8. Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Australia

9. Oxfam Australia Queensland Committee and the University of Queensland Environment

Collective, Australia

10. Resistance, Australia

11. Rising Tide Newcastle, Australia

12. Sutherland Climate Action Network, Australia

13. FIAN, Austria

14. Oil Workers Rights Protection Organization Public Union, Azerbaijan

15. ActionAid, Bangladesh

16. BanglaPraxis, Bangladesh

17. Coastal Development Partnership (CDP), Bangladesh

18. Solidarity Workshop, Bangladesh

19. VOICE, Bangladesh

20. N ̇cleo Amigos da Terra, Brasil

21. Green Policy Institute, Bulgaria

22. FOCARFE, Cameroon

23. Friends of the Earth, Cyprus

24. Friends of the Earth, Finland

25. Les Amis de la Terre, France

26. Asienhaus, Germany

27. FIAN International, Germany

28. Urgewald, Germany

29. Forum for Indigenous Perspectives and Action, India

30. Indian Social Action Forum -INSAF, India

31. Nadi Ghati Morcha, India

32. National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers, India

33. North East Peoples Alliance on Trade Finance and Development, India

34. Public Interest Research Centre, India

35. Urban Research Centre, India

36. Debtwatch, Indonesia

37. Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR), Indonesia

38. Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Italy

39. Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society, Japan

40. NGO Globus, Kazakhstan

41. Community Environmental Promotion and Cultural Association (CEPCA), Lao PDR

42. Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Nepal

43. National Concerned Society, Nepal

44. Nepal Policy Institute, Nepal

45. Water and Energy Federation Nepal (WAFED), Nepal

46. BankTrack, Netherlands

47. Both ENDS, Netherlands

48. Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth, Netherlands

49. Participatory Development Initiatives, Pakistan

50. Umeedenao Citizen Community Board, Pakistan

51. 11.11.11, Philippines

52. Center for Environmental Concerns (CEC), Philippines

53. EmPOWER Consumers, Philippines

54. Freedom from Debt Coalition, Secretary General, Philippines

55. NGO Forum on the ADB, Philippines

56. ODA Watch, Philippines

57. Philippines Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines

58. Public Services International Research Unit, Philippines

59. NGO Environmental Law Center “Armon”, Republic of Uzbekistan

60. Friends of the Earth, Scotland

61. Wave, Scotland

62. Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka

63. Aktion Finanzplatz Schweiz, Switzerland

64. arbeitskreis tourismus & entwicklung, Switzerland

65. Basler Appell gegen Gentechnologie, Switzerland

66. Berne Declaration, Switzerland

67. berwegerconsulting, Switzerland

68. BeTrieb, Switzerland

69. fair-fish association, Switzerland

70. Greenpeace, Switzerland

71. Gr ̧ne Partei der Schweiz, Parti Ècologiste suisse, Switzerland

72. HEKS, Swiss Interchurch Aid, Switzerland

73. medico international schweiz, Switzerland

74. Responsible for Projects of medico international schweiz, Switzerland

75. Schweizerisches Rotes Kreuz Kanton Zurich, Switzerland

76. SOLIFONDS, Switzerland

77. Swiss Red Cross Canton Zurich, Switzerland

78. World Without Mines, Switzerland

79. Youth Ecological Centre, Tajikistan

80. Forest Peoples Programme, U.K.

81. Platform, U.K.

82. The Corner House, U.K.

83. War on Want, U.K.

84. World Development Movement, U.K.

85. Adrian Dominican Sisters, U.S.A.

86. Congregation of St. Joseph, U.S.A.

87. Congregation of the Sisters of St. Agnes, U.S.A.

88. Crude Accountability, U.S.A.

89. Environmental Defense Fund, U.S.A.

90. Friends of the Earth, U.S.A.

91. Forest Ethics, U.S.A.

92. Gender Action, U.S.A.

93. Global Response, U.S.A.

94. International Accountability Project, U.S.A.

95. International Rivers, U.S.A.

96. Maryknoll Sisters, U.S.A.

97. Midwest Coalition for Responsible Investments, U.S.A.

98. Mission Hospital, U.S.A.

99. National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW), U.S.A.

100. Oil Change International, U.S.A.

101. Pacific Environment, U.S.A.

102. Rainforest Action Network, U.S.A.

103. Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment, U.S.A.

104. School Sisters of Notre Dame Cooperative Investment Fund, U.S.A.

105. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, U.S.A.

106. Sisters of Charity of New York, U.S.A.

107. Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, U.S.A.

108. Sustainable Energy and Environment Network, U.S.A.

109. Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITEM), Uruguay

110. Rural Development Services Centre, Vietnam

Cloak and dagger over coal policy

Tanim Ahmed, NewAge, August 21, 2008

It appears that the draft coal policy began with a text heavily biased towards private investment and facilitating large margins of profit for the mining companies. Ideally, there should not be a problem with the private investor making large margins but not at the cost of national interests or doing away with all kinds of binding safeguards to protect the environment and livelihoods of thousands of people who would be displaced.

TWO years ago on August 26, a citizens’ platform led the locals to take to the streets protesting against a proposed open pit coalmine by a British mining company. The National Committee for the Protection of Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Ports, led a procession of some 70,000 people from around the Phulbari township protesting against Asia Energy’s project that would see most of them become landless. Law enforcement agencies opened fire on the reasonably peaceful assembly just as it was about to break at the end of the day’s programme. Three people were killed, dozens were injured either by gunshot or when the law enforcers charged batons. What followed has become one of the celebrated instances of popular resistance leading to an agreement between the people of Phulbari and the government of the day. Like most other popular movements, the events of Phulbari Day was actually a culmination of almost a year’s campaign and mass awareness programmes undertaken by the citizens’ platform, popularly known as the Oil Gas Committee.


The local inhabitants found that this mining company gave out contradictory and sometimes erroneous information. They had little idea that the coalmine would gobble up their lands and that they would have to be relocated and begin life afresh. Although Asia Energy claimed to have conducted consultations with a few thousand households, only a few people admitted to having spoken to their representatives and refused to acknowledge those meetings as ‘consultations’ in which they had apparently agreed to the establishment of a coalmine in the area.


Misgivings still remain and a report published in the New Nation on August 20 does not do much allay them. Neither does a column by Mohammad Nurul Islam, a member of the coal policy drafting committee, published in Prothom Alo on August 4. Both the pieces relate to the finalised coal policy that has now been submitted for approval by the council of advisers. The report, citing sources in the Energy Division and those present at the meeting of the council in Chittagong last week, states that there were strong differences among the advisers over the amount of royalty and land acquisition issue. Apparently, it was the contention of some of the advisers that the recommended 13 per cent royalty was high and private quarters would not be interested to invest with such a high rate. Recommendations regarding the method of mining, rehabilitation of the dislocated inhabitants of the mine area and land acquisition also featured in the discussion. The policy was eventually sent back to the Energy Division with a recommendation from the council to shorten it and remove ambiguities, following which it might again be placed for approval in December.


In his column, Nurul Islam, a professor of the Institute of Appropriate Technology of the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, states plainly that if the coal policy is approved by the council of advisers as it is, it would undermine national interests and favour the mining companies. He goes on to make several recommendations.


The initial proposal by Asia Energy, now Global Coal Management, in 2005, according to which Bangladesh would receive only six per cent royalty from extracted coal, was controversial and strongly criticised by different quarters. The misgivings would not appear unfounded given the context and process through which the Asia Energy project has come about.


Although the stipulated royalty for open pit coalmine was fixed at 20 per cent by the law prevailing till December 1995, the Bureau of Mineral Development entered into an agreement with BHP Billiton in August 1994 settling on a royalty rate of just six per cent for an open pit mine in Phulbari. Just one month before, the bureau had entered into another agreement with Petrobangla for Barapukuria at a royalty of 20 per cent. This was the first instance of irregularity betraying machinations in favour of a foreign investor.


The relevant law was modified in December 1995 stipulating six per cent royalty for open pit and five per cent for shaft mining of coal. When the BHP handed over their contract to Asia Energy, the government was not notified in due time.


The royalty rate remains an issue even today as both the report and Nurul Islam’s column points out. He recommends that this rate should be fixed at 15 per cent. But the council of advisers, according to the report, deemed 13 per cent to be too high. M Tamim, the special assistant to the chief adviser in charge of the energy ministry, however, pointed out that in other countries taxes are much higher than in Bangladesh and argued that the proposed rate was justified.


In its feasibility study, Asia Energy proposed that the open pit mine would to take up some 65 square kilometres although the prevailing law stipulated that it should not be more than eight square kilometres.


Once Asia Energy’s initial proposal came under fire from even the bureaucrats, particularly those heading the energy and mineral resources divisions of the energy ministry in 2005, there was a largely unanimous recommendation that it would be assessed under a coal policy that would be formulated. Since then, there has been little talk of a comprehensive energy policy or a mining policy encompassing all the different aspects.


The first draft was prepared and finalised on December 1, 2005 and a second draft by January 23 the following year. The two were made public and discussed. Both the drafts appeared as if they had been formulated in such a manner so as to accommodate the proposals of Asia Energy and the Indian Tata group, which was at that time vying for an open pit mine in Barapukuria as part of its $3 billion investment proposal in Bangladesh. The drafts allowed for substantial coal exports and projected such a level of extraction for which there would not be sufficient demand in the local market. The high rate of coal extraction was advocated in order to ‘ensure energy security’ for the country but would have eventually meant export of large amounts of coal.


The drafts were duly criticised but subsequent drafts still retained provisions facilitating exports and coal extraction in an open pit method of mining without concrete safeguards for adverse environmental impacts or rehabilitation of the local inhabitants that include a few thousand people of ethnic minority communities. The coal policy went through six drafts till June 2007 when a high-powered committee was formed with former BUET vice-chancellor Abdul Matin Patwary as chairman. The Patwary Committee, comprising eight members, was charged with analysing the sixth draft and finalising the coal policy.


Interestingly, this committee did not include Nurul Islam on some vague ground, but the members co-opted him into it nonetheless. The sixth version of the policy, dated June 21, 2007, was made available on the internet and public opinion was sought on it. This version remains the only one available in the public domain. Although it was put in the public domain claiming more openness, the subsequent versions were never made available. The seventh version that the Patwary Committee finalised also went through a relatively transparent and apparently participatory process with members of the media present at the meetings and different interested quarters welcome to make their submissions and deliberations. The seventh draft was submitted to the secretary for energy and mineral resources in January 2008. Since then the energy division has been working on the draft and, according to Nurul Islam, has changed the draft for the worse.


It appears that the draft coal policy began with a text heavily biased towards private investment and facilitating large margins of profit for the mining companies. Ideally, there should not be a problem with the private investor making large margins but not at the cost of national interests or doing away with all kinds of binding safeguards to protect the environment and livelihoods of thousands of people who would be displaced. But the process was such that with every draft the interest of the private quarters were diluted a little and provisions tweaked around a little to allow marginal benefits to Bangladesh. The Patwary Committee, therefore, had a huge task on its hand to turn the entire draft around and produce one that favoured national interests over anything else.


Given the controversy and criticisms, the committee members went out of their way to specify a number of provisions and even stipulated the constitution of the coal development committee. This appears to be the main complaint against them now, that they went beyond their mandate and produced something that is more like a policy and act put together. It should have been appreciated that the committee did extra work just to ensure all the bones of contention were covered. Now it seems, however, that the final draft will go through another round of modifications.
 It increasingly seems that just because the coal is there, it must be extracted and used. But there is yet to be a thorough cost-benefit analysis. There is yet to be any concrete plan that would duly quell the apprehensions of the local populace by proving that they would end up being better off if the coal mine is established and they are relocated. There is yet to be any analysis about the extent of water table draw down due to continuous flushing out of groundwater, which could have telling impact on an otherwise food surplus region.


There is also the consideration that this particular project happens to be related to mineral extraction and that too of fossil fuel. It is a matter of historical and anecdotal experience, as well as being the finding of an academic research by an internal evaluation of the World Bank titled ‘Striking a Better Balance’, that investment in fossil fuel extraction, be it oil, gas or coal, are typically predatory and add little to the overall development of the host economy. In fact, these investments create indirect hindrances to wholesome development and contribute to slower sustainable growth of the recipient or host economies.


Investments in the gas sector should suffice as learning experiences. None of the two companies have till today compensated for the blowouts that they were responsible for. There is no guarantee that Asia Energy will not follow in their footsteps. That Bangladesh immediately needs to develop its natural resources to meet future and current energy demands cannot be denied. But it cannot be at the cost of food security and livelihoods of thousands of people or irreversible environmental destruction that open pit mines have been proven to cause across the world. There is also the matter of population density that experts often point out. They say there has never been an open pit mine in such densely populated areas like Bangladesh where there are almost 1,100 people per sq km as opposed to three in Canada and Australia, 32 in United States or even 368 in India.


As far as Phulbari is concerned and as far as Asia Energy is concerned, the local populace will renew their pledge on August 26. Their message is a simple one. No to open pit. No to exports. No to foreign companies.

‘You cannot eat coal’: resistance in Phulbari

NewAge, August 19, 2008. Dhaka, Bangladesh


Those who campaign against the ruthless exploitative practices of trans-national mining companies say, increased investment results in human rights abuses, especially against rural communities which the companies want to dislocate and uproot. They also say that the role of the state in extractive sector governance and citizens’ protection diminishes, while its role in protecting and promoting the interests of trans-national corporations increases. One sees that happening in Phulbari, over Asia Energy’s proposed Phulbari coal project, writes Rahnuma Ahmed

‘Only when the last tree has withered, and the last fish caught, and the last river been poisoned, will we realise we cannot eat money.’


Cree proverb



 ‘[the] uprootedness and superfluousness which have been the curse of modern masses since the beginning of the industrial revolution and have become acute with the rise of imperialism at the end of the last century and the break-down of political institutions and social traditions in our own time.’


Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1975
 


‘You cannot eat coal’


‘No, we do not want the coalmine. What will we eat?’ said an elderly woman. I was watching raw, uncut video footage from Phulbari, shot by media activists Zaeed Aziz and Farzana Boby, a couple of days after the killings occurred on August 26, 2006.


Another woman steps into the frame. She vents bitterly, we work daily for our subsistence, we eat from what we earn. That is all we have. If this land is turned into a coalmine, those who eat in exchange of daily wages, where will they go? Where will we live? How will we survive?


Zaeed and Farzana’s film, ‘The Blood-Soaked Banner of Phulbari’, was released soon after the killings in 2006. I watch the beginning sequence. A crowd of men stand at the long-distance bus stand in Phulbari town, they talk to each other and to the film crew. ‘We are poor people,’ says a man, probably in his late-thirties. ‘If I lose my home, how will I earn a living? What use will be the coalmine?’ Who will it benefit?


I return to clips from their uncut footage. A younger woman is sitting in her courtyard, ‘No, I don’t have a husband, I live with my mother, I work with her. In the same place. If the coalmine comes, we, that is, us mothers-and-daughters, where will we go? We will be scattered from our relatives, we will lose our ties.’


‘Where will we go?’ This question is repeatedly raised by villagers, by both men and women, old and young, by farmers, day-labourers, petty businessmen, schoolchildren, college-going youths, both Bengalis and adivasis, who belong to Santal, Oraon, Pahan, Mahali and Munda communities. By Hindus and Muslims.


‘Two coalmines have been built in neighbouring areas,’ one of the men standing at the bus-stand in the Blood-Soaked Banner documentary had said. ‘What development has it brought, tell me?’


I turn to Ronald Halder and Philip Gain’s film, ‘Phulbari’, an activist film released by SEHD earlier this year. Abdul Jalil of village Chouhati turns his face away in pent-up anger when asked how he has benefited from the coalmine in Barapukuria. ‘Benefit? How have I benefited? It has crippled me. I cannot describe the damage it has done. Those who have benefited from it have. We have been devastated.’


Azizunessa of the same village does not mince her words. She too has suffered from the Barapukuria coalmine. ‘We are poor people, we raise a cow, a goat or two. But the security guards, they do not let us enter, they do not allow us to cut even a blade of grass. So how does the coalmine that they have built, help us? How do I get my bowl of rice? They do not give me work in the coalmines. My sons have no food. How will they live? Only Allah knows what our situation is like. How our days pass. Or don’t. I did agricultural work, I winnowed paddy, I worked, I ate, I brought in one and a half seers of rice from the house I worked in, I fed the children. Work is not something that appears out of nowhere, that daughters-in-law can bring, that poor people can give each other. Why is it that the coalmine has stopped me from working, from feeding myself? The coalmine is protected by barbed wire fences, it is surrounded by high walls. Why?’ Who benefits from the coalmine?


The Phulbari coal project plans to extract coal using open-pit mining method in seven unions and one municipality in four upazilas of Phulbari, Birampur, Nawabganj and Parbatipur in Dinajpur district. The company behind the $1.4-billion project is Asia Energy Corporation (Bangladesh), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the British-registered Global Coal Management Resources Pls. According to Asia Energy, 40,000 people would be involuntarily resettled, 10,000 hectares, primarily of fertile agricultural land, would be required for mine and associated infrastructure. Activists say the number of people evicted is likely to be ten times more. The proposed coal project would divert a river, suck an aquifer dry for thirty years, the life span of the project. Dynamite explosion, environmentalists say, would cause noise and dust pollution, this would be increased by the trucks and trains that will haul away the coal to the port in Sundarban. To prevent flooding, huge pumps will pump out 800 million litres of water daily, from the mine. This will lower the groundwater in an area covering 500 square kilometres. Air and water pollution is likely to spread to surrounding water bodies. Asia Energy plans to create a huge lake after the project is over, but activists predict that the water is likely to be toxic.


GCM has a sustainable development manager who guides their approach. But the global record of mining operations rejects the sustainable development myth. Roger Moody, international researcher and campaigner against exploitation caused by multinational mining, writes in ‘Rocks and Hard Places: The Globalization of Mining’, lesser-developed countries, those with a high degree of dependence on mining, show slower rates of economic growth than their peers. Some countries, he writes, have been worse off. Potosi, a region that has been mined for silver for five centuries, is one of the poorest in Bolivia. Closer home is Orissa, Bihar and Jharkand which provide most of India’s minerals. Bihar has been for many years India’s ‘least developed’ state, while Orissa, in 2005, was ranked as the ‘poorest’ in the country. Mined regions even in advanced and middle-income countries have been the last to share in aggregated wealth. In 1870, Cornwall had 2,000 tin and copper mines. When the last pit was closed in 1998, Cornwall had the highest proportion of low-paid workers. Mineral-dependent economies, largely in Africa, are more likely to experience zero or even negative growth, since labour and capital move away from sustainable sectors to the extractive sector, and domestic products lose their competitive edge on international markets.


And of course, ‘understanding’ risks, albeit from a safe distance, is not the same as being willing to undergo it oneself. Recently, activists from the Alberta Environmental Network showed up at the Oil and Gas Investment Symposium in Calgary, Canada, held by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The event brought together 85 companies and 375 investors from Canada, the US, and around the world. Those present at the meeting were offered drinking water that Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation peoples claim is toxic. They experience high rates of rare cancers and auto-immune diseases, which they believe are linked to the development of the tar sands.


None of the producers/owners, investors, CEOs drank the water.
 


26th August 2006


On August 26, 2006, more than 50,000 people took part in protests against the proposed mine, in Phulbari town. People from adjoining towns and villages poured in. The Bangladesh Rifles, a paramilitary force, opened fire on the protesters. Three young men, Tariqul, son of the municipal commissioner and panel chairman, Ameen, a young carpenter, and Salehin of the adjoining upazila Nawabganj died instantly. One to two hundred people are reported to have been injured in the violence unleashed by the BDR and police.


I turn to Zaeed and Boby’s uncut video footage. A woman describes angrily, ‘It was around maghreb, just before the call for prayers, the photographers had left, TV reporters too, that’s when they attacked us.’ To leave no photographic evidence? Another woman butts in, ‘We had chased out the police, I was so furious, I have never had the courage before, since that day I have learnt how to fight. Now, I have limitless courage. I am not afraid to die.’ The woman speaking earlier returns to her story, ‘The military [read BDR] began beating up people, they entered into our homes, they tore down the tin roofs.’ She is indignant, ‘These are people who are meant to protect us, they are law-enforcers.’ Another woman speaks up, ‘Did any of them die? They never do. Did any of them suffer any injuries?’


A woman who was badly beaten says, ‘The BDR entered our villages, they went from house to house. How dare they enter our villages? So we chased them out. But then they regrouped, they came after us. I couldn’t escape, they caught me and beat me very badly.’ The shot shows other women in the courtyard, nodding their heads as they listen.


Off-screen I hear a female voice, ‘Can the government ever defeat the janata?’ A woman wearing a printed sari on-screen says, ‘It is the government which breeds terrorists, they tear down the shops of poor people, they snatch away cigarettes and other items, they break these little cigarette stalls that are run by young boys for a living.’ Another off-screen voice, also a woman’s, speaks up, ‘Ordinary people are never terrorists.’


Most of the women, in no uncertain words, condemned Khaleda Zia, the then prime minister, for having sold out the interests of the country. What kind of a woman is she? Sending soldiers after us, dragging our husbands out of our homes. Does she want to make us widows? Their language was laced with four-letter words, often directed at her, at times at the then energy ministry adviser, Mahmudur Rahman, sometimes at the whole cabinet. I brought up the issue with Nurul Kabir, the editor of this paper. He said with a wry smile, ‘I am most respectful of subaltern languages, but wouldn’t it offend bhodrolok sensibilities?’ We laugh and talk about the gentrification of language, a class-ed mechanism of ruling. Who was it who had said there can be feelings without language, but no language without feelings? Was it not the historian Collingwood? I muse over issues of language, of home and belonging as I search the web and read through newspaper reports of the 26th, and after. I come across news reports stating the energy ministry adviser, Mahmudur Rahman, blamed a ‘small group of leftist parties without any influence whatsoever’ for orchestrating the deaths and injury to people at Phulbari. Asia Energy Bangladesh’s CEO Gary Lye’s words mirror Mahmudur Rahman’s, ‘It’s up to the government, but it would appear to us that the unforgivable events and the needless loss of life and suffering that took place in Phulbari are entirely the fault of the organisers.’


Those who campaign against the ruthless exploitative practices of trans-national mining companies say, increased investment results in human rights abuses, especially against rural communities which the companies want to dislocate and uproot. They also say that the role of the state in extractive sector governance and citizens’ protection diminishes, while its role in protecting and promoting the interests of trans-national corporations increases. One sees that happening in Phulbari, over Asia Energy’s proposed Phulbari coal project.


Mozammel member, a pourasabha member, says in defence of the project, ‘If the government wishes it, how can we prevent it from happening?’ People around him ask, ‘But why do you want the coalmine? Can you not see that it is not in the interests of the people?’ His answer is cruel and simple, ‘We are not for the people. We are for the government.’
 


The compensation story


In the Blood-Soaked Banner, a man who describes himself as a petty businessman says, ‘Yes, the coal project will bring benefits to some, to those who have built three-storey buildings in the town, those who have made plans of where to relocate, where to build new homes, the businesses that they will start, even, what kind of houses they will build for themselves.’ It will benefit those already-privileged, those who are townspeople. But not those who live off the land, those who make a living from agriculture, from day-labour, and the innumerable number of ways through which poor people make a living. In other words, the majority.


Abdul Jalil of Chouhati, Barapukuria was asked about the compensation that he had received from the government. ‘They gave it in little, little instalments, it took ages, the money dried up as I walked back and forth to collect it.’ Compensation is also tied up with land deeds and titles, a method of possession and ownership that is antagonistic to the adivasi tradition, and their claims to ancestral land. That is probably why Lawrence Tudu of Buski, Birampur says, ‘We will not leave this village, we will not leave our homestead, we will not leave the soil, if necessary, my remains will get buried under this soil.’


Poor people’s claims to compensation are entangled in bureaucracy, and in corporate controlled channels of profiteering. Corporations themselves evade responsibility and accountability as one sees in Magurcchara and Tengratila, where international oil companies have shown great reluctance to pay compensation for the miserable accidents that have occurred.


And compensation for killings? Ameen’s mother when asked said yes, I have received two lakh taka from the government, as compensation. And another twenty thousand from Sheikh Hasina, leader of the Awami League, the then opposition party (interestingly enough, it was the Awami League government that awarded the licensing agreement to Asia Energy, in 1998). But, she says, I hurt, I grieve for my son. I raised him, does compensation lessen my loss? Will money ever call out ‘ma’, or ‘baba’?
 


Democracy, a world of power


Democracy, writes historian and subaltern theorist Partha Chatterjee in his recent work, ‘The Politics of the Governed’, is no longer government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Twentieth-century techniques of governing population groups, widespread acceptance of the idea of popular sovereignty, the creation of governmental bodies that administer populations but do not provide its citizens with arenas of democratic deliberation, these conditions, says Chatterjee, give rise to democracy becoming a world of power. A world which has startling dimensions, and unwritten rules of engagement.


I see the people of Phulbari voice a collective identity, framed, at first, within the politics of electoral democracy. We have brought this government to power. How can they not do what we want? It is my vote that decides who will be the member of parliament. I elect the chairman. He must work for me, in my interests. A woman adds, what kind of a government is it that pushes us into waging movements? That destroys our peaceful lives, that takes away our sons? We want to return to our normal lives. Increasingly, people’s voices become more assertive. If the government does not value us, we will not value them either. If the government will not provide for us, we do not need this government. We do not need any government.


Amidst the strident assertiveness, a peasant’s words ring out clearly, ‘I am a khetmojur, I till the land. It is the crops I grow that feed the leaders. Am I more valuable, or they?’


Whether elected or un-elected, all governments, both leaders and state functionaries, need to be fed. They would be well-advised to listen to the voices of those who produce. After all, one cannot eat coal. Or money, either.

Barclays sells shares in GCM Resources Plc

World Development Movement (WDM), July 7, 2008. London, UK

In June 2008 Barclays Bank sold its shares in GCM Resources Plc – a British company that is pushing through the building of a controversial mine in Bangladesh. A mine that, if built, will displace 40,000 people and threatened the water supply of a further 100,000. This move comes just two months after the Asian Development Bank removed financial banking from the controversial project, further placing the project in jeopardy.

WDM has spearheaded the UK campaign to stop the Phulbari mine project going ahead. Thousands of WDM supporters wrote to Barclays demanding that it sold its shares and WDM campaigners also attended Barclays AGM, demanding the same.

Tim Jones, policy officer at the World Development Movement said: “We are pleased to see that Barclays has sold its shares in GCM Resources Plc. And we now want Barclays, and other UK banks to remove all financial involvement in the project both now in and in the future. This is yet another blow for GCM and a victory for some of the poorest people in Bangladesh”.

WDM will continue to campaign to prevent the mine from being built more…

Take Action:www.wdm.org.uk/bangladeshmine

Kate Blagojevic
Press officer, World Development Movement
0207 820 4900/4913, 07711 875 345
Email:kate.blagojevic@wdm.org.uk

UK government lobbied for Phulbari Coal Project

World Development Movement, May 2008

The UK government has been actively supporting plans by a British company to build an open-cast mine in Bangladesh. The mine in Phulbari, proposed by UK company Global Coal Management, would destroy the homes of more than 40,000 people and threaten the water supplies of a further 100,000.

In response to a question asked in the UK parliament, the Department for Business has disclosed that it has lobbied the Bangladesh government for the mine to go ahead.

Gareth Thomas MP, UK Trade Minister, has now admitted that the British government “have lobbied to ensure that the Government of Bangladesh take the company's interests into consideration and do not prohibit opencast mining. The British high commission will continue to remain in touch with the company and will represent their interests as appropriate.”

Tim Jones from the World Development Movement said:

“It is scandalous that the UK government has been actively supporting plans for this potentially disastrous mine. If implemented, it would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people.

“The British government are putting the profits of British business ahead of the welfare of thousands of people in one of the poorest countries in the world.

“Gareth Thomas is both a Minister for Business and for International Development. Phulbari is a test case for whose side he is really on - the only development the mine will promote is that of a British company.”

Community leaders from Phulbari said earlier this year that the mine “will increase the poverty of the local population as well as cause environmental disaster.”

Global Coal Management’s investors include British bank Barclays and Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse. In April 2008, the Asian Development Bank announced it was pulling out of funding the scheme.

Take Action: www.wdm.org.uk/bangladeshmine

Further information:

Kate Blagojevic
Press officer, World Development Movement
0207 820 4900/4913, 07711 875 345, Email: kate.blagojevic@wdm.org.uk

Phulbari Coal Extraction: Open pit mining to affect food security in Dinajpur

Oil, gas protection body leaders tell meetings at Phulbari, Nilphamari

The Daily Star, May 31 2008. Dhaka, Bangladesh

Leaders of National Oil, Gas, Power, Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee said here yesterday the food security will be affected in the district if the coal in Phulbari is extracted through open pit mine method.

They said about 40 square mile land in four upazilas in the district will be damaged in the process.

The committee leaders were addressing a meeting titled, 'People's Demand and Phulbari Coalmine,' held yesterday at Rabeya Community Centre at Phulbari where three persons were killed during a carnage there on August 26, 2006. The meeting was presided by committee convener Md Saiful Islam Jewel.

The coalmine will bring numerous sufferings to villagers, they said. They said the coal will be utilized outside the country rather than using for domestic purpose.

The meeting expressed dissatisfaction as the government is yet to implement the 6-point demand signed after Phulbari carnage on August 30, 2006. They urged the caretaker government to implement the demand. They urged the people of the four affected upazilas to thwart any conspiracy of foreign investors in this regard.

Md. Saiful Islam Jewel, convener of Phulbari Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee told the meeting that nation will decide to utilize the underground resources of the country and Phulbari people will thwart any conspiracy against them with the Phulbari coal project, he added.

The speakers observed that a strong political will is needed to resolve the issue. In his address, Prof Anu Mohammad, general secretary of the committee said that the underground asset belongs to people who will decide their fate.

Among others, Prof Anu Mohammad, Engineer Sheikh Muhammad Shahidullah and Haider Akbar Khan Rano of Workers' Party, Zunayed Shaki, Gano Sanghati Andolon, Prof Samsul Alam (member), Tipur Biswas of Gano Front and Advocate Abdus Salam spoke.

Earlier, the committee leaders held a press conference at 'Media House' in Nilphamari on Thursday, said our district correspondent. They said the countrymen won't not allow any amendment in proposed coal policy.

They said for coal extraction, the principle of utilisng mineral resources for betterment of people, not for making profit, should be followed. The coal also should be extracted by national organisations, they said.

Chaired by Sreedam Das, convener of the district unit of the committee, the press conference was addressed by Engineer Sheikh Muhammad Sahidullah, Prof Anu Mohammad and Noor Mohammad.

They said 'Asia Energy' is spreading corruption in order to establish their 'devastating' plan as a development project. They said the expert committee formed earlier termed the development plan of 'Asia Energy' as illegal and their project against the national interest. Prof Anu Mohammad alleged 'Asia Energy' is trying to divide public opinion by making some agents.

Phulbari bed reserves at least 572 million tonnes of coal. If Bangladesh Government signs any deal with a company then coal extraction will last for 30 years where about 50,000 people will be relocated, according to officials of Asia Energy.

Let elected govt decide on Phulbari coalmine: Leaders of national oil, gas protection committee say at Dinajpur meet

The Daily Star, May 27, 2008. Dhaka, Bangladesh

Leaders of National Oil, Gas, Power, Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee yesterday urged the caretaker government to leave the decision about Phulbari coalmine for next elected political government.

Emphasising extraction of the coal with domestic efforts, they urged the government to ensure its uses for domestic purpose instead of exporting.

The caretaker government should respect the will of Phulbari people about implementing coalmine project, they said at a discussion on 'Development of north using mineral resources and national interest'.

Dinajpur unit of National Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee organised the discussion at Dinajpur Natya Samity Auditorium.

The people of Phulbari are yet to recover from the shock they received during the Phulbari carnage on August 26, 2006 Asia Energy is still optimistic to extract coal from Phulbari, said Prof Anu Muhammad, general secretary of National Oil, Gas, Power, Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee.

The nation will decide about utilisation of the underground resources of the country, Md Saiful Islam Jewel, convener of Phulbari Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee, told the meeting.

Phulbari people will thwart any conspiracy against them, he said.

He said open pit mining will damage 1,00,000 acres of cultivable land in four upazilas and displace about 50,000 people.

Gono Sanghati Andolon leader Junayed Saki blasted World Bank, IMF and Asian Development Bank for giving green signal to invest in Bangladesh for a project that would bring in 'humanitarian disaster'.

Gono Front leader Tipu Biswas observed that strong political will is needed to resolve the issue about Phulbari coalmine project. He also condemned the illegal steps of certain quarter to draw supports regarding Phulbari Coalmine mobilising hundreds people in the affected four upazila of Dinajpur.

Nur Muhammad criticised the role of Dr Tamim, special assistant to chief adviser, about Phulbari coalmine.

The government is facing trouble to tackle the recent disaster due to underground mining of Barapukuria Coalmine Company Ltd (BCMCL) and open pit mining is much more dangerous, engineer Sheikh Muhammad Shahidullah, convener of National Oil, Gas, Power, Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee, said.

Phulbari coalmine project, if implemented, will bring the government about Tk 25,000 crore while it will eventually lead to loss of Tk 1,00,000 crore, he said.

Md Mosaddeque Hossain Labu, convener of Dinajpur unit National Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee, read out the keynote at the meeting.

At least 572 million tonnes of coal is reserved in Phulbari coal bed. If Bangladesh Government signs deal with a company then the coal extraction will last for 30 years while about 50,000 people will be relocated, according to the officials of Asia Energy.

Haidar Akbar Ali Khan Rono of Workers Party and Chitta Ghosh also spoke at the meeting. Later the leaders of National Oil, Gas, Power, Mineral Resources and Port Protection Committee answered questions from the audience.

Govt warned of slide in law, order situation: Advised to suspend Asia Energy activities

The Daily Star, May 27, 2008. Dhaka, Bangladesh

An intelligence agency in a special report has suggested that the government temporarily suspend all direct or indirect activities of Asia Energy to avert severe deterioration in law and order around Phulbari coalmine.

In a report to the energy ministry, the home ministry has referred to a special report of the intelligence agency saying that in order to avoid such a situation, the government must formulate a policy on Phulbari coalmine that is acceptable to all considering national and local interest and on the basis of open discussion at national level.

The report also suggested that the government should motivate all local people in favour of the coalmine.

Sources say the energy ministry on May 15 reviewed the report and observed that Asia Energy has not been given any lease to develop Phulbari mine and the government has not taken any decision on open cut or underground mining.

Decisions on these matters may be taken after the draft coal policy is finalised.

The process to frame the coal policy was initiated by the energy ministry since August 2005. This process slowed down apparently due to disputes surrounding the proposed Phulbari coalmine and Asia Energy.

The ministry also felt that the Bureau of Mineral Development (BMD) should ask Asia Energy to refrain from all activities under its own name or other names.

Later, the ministry decided not to say anything to Asia Energy.

Asia Energy's activities in Phulbari came to a halt following violent protests, in which six people were killed in August 2006.

The protests were organised by the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port. The key factor of the protests included fear of displacement of more than 200,000 people and losing huge arable land.

After the Phulbari protests, the government officially did not say anything to Asia Energy, while the British company routinely filed applications enquiring about the status of its proposal for the mine.

On March 7, 2007, the BMD wrote to Asia Energy for the first time saying the company would have to wait till the coal policy is finalised. The BMD sent a second letter on November 5 reiterating the same position.

Though Asia Energy made a visible presence in 2002, it did not draw national attention till it submitted a feasibility study and a scheme of development in 2005.

The company in its study shows the mine has 572 million tonnes of high quality coal and 90 percent of it can be extracted through an open pit mine.

Asia Energy's proposals included building a 500MW coal-fired power plant at mine site at an estimated cost of $476 million.

The company was scheduled to start the mine development from late 2006 with first coal in 2008. Full production was expected to be achieved by 2013.

Asia Energy entered the coal mining scenario in 1998 by buying the mining contract originally given to international coal giant BHP on August 20, 1994.

Supporters of National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port say Asia Energy was given the exploration licence unfairly by compromising national interest. They add that the company had no mining experience and that open pit mining will harm the environment.

Petrobangla experts however differ with the Committee, especially on the question of open pit mining, saying Bangladesh lacks energy security and its coal can provide a great solution.

Sixteen million tonnes of coal can generate 5,000MW power for one year. Coal can also be transformed into synthetic petroleum and a host of other useful chemicals.

The Asia Energy debate is holding back all decisions regarding other prospective coalmines.

Intimidation, pressure alleged in Phulbari coalfield area

May 6, 2008, NewAge, May 5, 2008.

National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port on Sunday alleged that some army men were creating panic among the people of Phulbari in Dinajpur in the name of taking opinion on the controversial open-pit coal project.


It also alleged that the British government through its high commissioner in Dhaka was continuing lobbying in favour of Asia Energy in Bangladesh and creating pressure on the government to allow the company for coal mining.


‘We have recently come to know that some members of the army wearing military uniforms have been visiting different areas of the coalfield zone in their vehicles and asking people whether they will agree to leave the village in exchange of compensation,’ said the committee’s member-secretary Anu Muhammad at a press conference in the city.


‘If the government really wants to conduct survey on the coal project to take people’s opinion, it can do that. We are also ready to extend support. But it is similar to take consent by intimidation, if any army man with arms conducts public opinion survey,’ he said.


Anu also condemned such activities and demanded immediate end to such move.


Replying to a question on whether the army was supporting the Asia Energy’s proposed open-pit mine at Phulbari, Anu said, ‘We do not know anything about it. We do not know why the army is there. We also want to understand what the army is doing there. We request the government to clear its position in this regard.’


When contacted, an official of the Inter Service Public Relations, however, said they were not aware of any allegation made by anyone regarding to any study. He declined to elaborate.


Anu said Asia Energy had engaged some lobbyists, comprising former bureaucrats, consultants and journalists, in pressing ahead with the devastating project. The company was also campaigning in northern districts that it was a ‘development project’, he added.


He called upon the British government and lending agencies like Asian Development Bank to stop lobbying in favour of the devastating project of Asia Energy which would destroy the environment in the northern region and push thousands of people on streets.


Anu demanded immediate scrapping of the Phulbari coal project and ouster of the company from the country as per the agreement signed with the people of Phulbari in 2006.


The committee convenor Sheikh Md Shahidullah said the people of Phulbari had given their verdict against the coal project, and there was no need to conduct public opinion survey.


When asked what the committee would do, if the government did not scrap the project, he said, ‘We are protesting against it and we will continue with our protest.’


Three persons were killed and few others injured at Phulbari on August 26, 2006 when law enforcers opened fire on the people who were staging demonstration in protest against the planned open pit mining project.


Professor Hossain Monsur of Dhaka University, Professor Shamsul Alam of Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology and left leader Ruhin Hossain Prince were, among others, present at the press conference.

Press Release: Asian Development Bank Pulls Out of Controversial Phulbari Coal Project in Bangladesh

Press Release: April 3, 2008

BanglaPraxis ● Bank Information Center
● International Accountability Project
Urgewald ● World Development Movement

The Director of the Asian Development Bank’s Private Sector Operations Department, Robert Bestani, notified the Bank’s Board last week that it will no longer ask for approval of the Phulbari Coal Project in Bangladesh. The ADB’s Board was slated to approve a US$ 100 mio. loan and US$ 200 mio. political risk guarantee for the project on June 3, 2008.

This comes as another major blow to the UK based company GCM Resources (formerly known as Asia Energy), which aims to establish one of the world’s largest open pit coal mines near the town of Phulbari in northwestern Bangladesh. GCM/Asia Energy was forced to shut down its operations and flee the project area after a major protest of over 50,000 people in 2006 resulted in three deaths and hundreds being injured as government-backed paramilitary forces fired upon the protesters.

Since then and in spite of the Bangladesh Government’s Emergency Power Rules that ban major civil liberties such as the right to public assembly of more than five people, widespread opposition in the project area has continued. National opposition has been led by the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources and Ports (NC). Although its General Secretary Prof. Anu Muhammad has received death threats and its local leader Mr. Nuruzuman was publicly tortured by the military in February 2007, the, NC and other civil society organizations have remained undaunted in their opposition to the Phulbari project.

As Prof. Muhammad says: “The area around Phulbari is extremely fertile and densely populated. It is also one of the few regions in Bangladesh that are safe from flooding and other natural catastrophes and therefore plays a key role for the food security of the entire country. The proposed “development” project is merely a scheme to loot natural resources from a poor country for the rich. We will not allow GCM Resources to turn a land of food for the people into a black hole for corporate profit.”

According to the company’s own estimates, the mine would displace some 50,000 people. However, an Expert Committee commissioned by the Bangladesh Government in 2005 found these numbers to be grossly underestimated. The Expert Committee reports that 130,000 people would be displaced for the mine and a further 220,000 would be impacted through the massive draw-down of the water table, which is necessary to keep water from running into the 300 meter deep mine pit. This would have major impacts on drinking water and irrigation for many miles beyond the actual mine. Furthermore, the company has no viable plan to prevent acid mine contamination of the soil and water as a result of mining 15 million tons of coal for over 35 years.

Mining expert Roger Moody says: “It is extremely costly to adequately prevent and mitigate acid mine drainage in a mine of this size. The acid is likely to stay in the environment for decades after the mine closes contaminating the land, rivers and streams. And GCM has not provided any financial details as to who would cover the bill for such an environmental disaster.”

Various community leaders and representatives of the Phulbari area wrote a letter to the ADB’s Executive Directors in December 2007, followed by a letter by over 60 international civil society organizations protesting ADB’s involvement in the project. As international NGOs point out, the project would also cause extensive damage to the Sundarbans mangrove forest, an UNESCO declared World Heritage Site where the port facilities for exporting the coal are to be constructed. As several of the ADB’s Executive Directors began raising questions about Phulbari, the Bank’s management finally decided to take the project out of ADB’s funding pipeline.

Shefali Sharma from the US NGO Bank Information Center, which monitors the activities of multilateral development banks, comments: “Phulbari is a singularly bad project and we are amazed that the ADB spent 3 years preparing a venture, which was clearly going to impoverish an immense number of people and risk an environmental catastrophe in the entire region. This raises serious questions about the bank’s due diligence and should encourage donor countries to strengthen their oversight and call for a reform of the institution.”

Tim Jones of the World Development Movement adds: “ The Phulbari project is truely a British and international scandal. GCM Resources is a British company and is backed by banks such as Barclays (UK), UBS and Credit Suisse (Switzerland). Among its other investors are the British hedge fund RAB Capital and the mutual funds manager Fidelity from the US. The ADB’s decision sends an important signal to these institutions about the inacceptability of their investment into this project.”

Bangladesh, British and international civil society organizations are now calling on these financial institutions to follow suit and pull the plug on the Phulbari coal project.

For further information contact:
Zakir Kibria, Tel: +8801714116020 (Dhaka, Bangladesh)
Heffa Schücking, Tel: +49-160-96761436 (Urgewald, Germany)
Tim Jones, Tel: +447817628196 (WDM, London, UK)
Shefali Sharma, Tel: +91 9871168212 (Bank Information Center, South Asia Office, Delhi, India)

Notes to the editor:

The Bangladesh Government originally awarded an exploration license to the Australian company BHP Minerals in 1994, which however, decided against developing a coal mining operation in the area. In 1999 its licenses were transferred to Asia Energy Corporation (Bangladesh) Pty Ltd. Asia Energy PLC was incorporated in London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market (Ticker code: GCM) in September 2003 and acquired 100% of Asia Energy Corp. It subsequently changed its name to Global Coal Management after August 2006 killings in Phulbari and to GCM Resources Plc in December 2007. According to the company’s 2007 annual report, its major shareholders are RAB Capital, UBS, Fidelity Group, Barclays, Credit Suisse, LR Global, Ospraie Management, Capital Group and Argos Greater Europe Fund. GCM Resource’s financial advisor is Barclays and its principal banker is the Bank of Scotland.

Urgent Appeal by World Organization against Torture: Risk of Violent Suppression of Public Opposition to the Phulbari Coal Mine Project

OMCT ACTION FILE (BGD 211207.ESCR)

BANGLADESH: RISK OF VIOLENT SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE PHULBARI COAL MINE PROJECT, DINAJPUR DISTRICT, BANGLADESH

Your action is called for to suspend the Phulbari Project until community concerns are met

OMCT is concerned that police and security forces may again employ violence to deal with public opposition to the Phulbari open-pit mining project

The International Secretariat of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), on the basis of reliable information received, expresses its concern that communities affected by the proposed Phulbari open-pit coal mine in the Dinajpur District of Bangladesh, have been neither adequately consulted not fully informed regarding this significant project.[1] Estimates put the number of people affected by the mine at anything between 50,000 and 500,000, including a number of indigenous communities. Many of these affected will be forced to leave their homes and land.

A public demonstration against the mine in August 2006 saw at least five persons killed and fifty others injured by the police and personnel of the Bangladesh Rifles. OMCT expresses its serious concern that further violence, ill-treatment and even deaths may ensue if local communities again seek to give public expression to their opposition.

To prevent further human right violations, and having regard to the strong local opposition to the project, OMCT calls upon the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to instigate a thorough independent investigation into the human and environmental impact of the Phulbari coal mine project, ensuring the full and informed participation of all local communities, to make the findings of this investigation available in a public report and to abide by the recommendations of this report. It also calls for the Government to lift the restrictions on public demonstrations imposed under emergency rule and take all necessary steps to prevent future episodes of violence by police and security forces against persons defending their human rights.

OMCT calls upon GCM Resources Plc (GCM) - the company in charge of the Phulbari project - to suspend its activities in this area until this investigation has been conducted and to abide by the recommendations resulting from this investigation. It also calls upopn GMC to fully respect the land rights, resources and livelihoods of all local communities affected by any subsequent mining activity and provide fair and adequate compensation wherever appropriate.

Finally, OMCT calls upon UBS, RAB Capital and Barclays, all of which have significant financial interest in GCM, to use their influence to ensure that the company abides by the recommendations issuing from the independent investigation and to make certain that it complies fully with national laws and international human rights standards.

The Phulbari coal mine project

The Phulbari coal deposit, in the Dinajpur District of Bangladesh, was discovered during the second half of the 1990s by the Australian mining company BHP. In 1998, the Government of Bangladesh awarded the licensing agreement for mining the deposit to the Asia Energy Corporation (Bangladesh) Pty Ltd,[2] a wholly-owned subsidiary of British-registered Global Coal Management Resources Plc. (GCM). The Phulbari mine is expected to lead to a 1 per cent increase in the gross domestic product of Bangladesh over the next 30 years, bringing more that US$ 21 billion to the Bangladeshi economy.[3] The Asian Development Bank is scheduled to approve a US$100 million private sector loan and a US$200 million political risk guarantee in favour of the Phulbari project on the basis of environmental and social impact studies included in a Definitive Feasibility Study carried out since April 2004.[4]

The Phulbari project is an open-pit mine.[5] In order to access the coal seams, it is reported that between 140 and 300 metres of earth will need to be removed, affecting an area of 59 km2. In terms of the human impact of the project, there are differing views. According to estimates from GCM, the mining company involved, the project will affect approximately 50,000 people (a total of some 12,000 households), including some 2,200 indigenous people. Of this total, some 43,000 will be displaced from their homes and land by the mine. This number will be higher if the full-scale expansion plans for the mine are carried out. On the other hand, according to the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Electricity and Ports, the number of people potentially affected could be as many as 470,000, including indigenous peoples belonging to Santhal, Munda and Mahali tribes, who occupy some 100 villages in Phulbari and surrounding sub-districts.[6]

In terms of the impact upon community structures, it is reported that the project will involve the closure of 50 educational institutions, including six colleges and 18 madrasas,[7] as well as 171 mosques, 13 temples and other religious establishments.[8] The mine will also have a significant environmental impact due to the considerable waste material produced in the extraction process. This in turn will have serious implications for the livelihood and, potentially, the health of local communities: the area around Phulbari is one of the most productive agricultural zones in Bangladesh, and the project will not only destroy productive farmland, but also cause the diversion of the Choto Jamuna River from its natural course. According to Professor Anu Muhammad in the Faculty of Economics at Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh, studies in other countries have shown that rivers as far as 160km away from an open-pit mine can remain polluted for three decades as a result of the waste generated. He concludes that "in a country like Bangladesh, with hundreds of small rivers linked like a huge net, polluted water can travel long beyond the mining area."[9] Despite these concerns, on 11 September 2005, the Bangladeshi Department of Environment approved the Environmental Impact Assessment Report prepared by the Asia Energy Corporation and granted environmental clearance for the mining operation.[10]

In order to gain the consent for the project from local communities, Asia Energy reportedly distributed colour televisions, cash, cloths and blankets to affected populations.[11] Furthermore, Asia Energy also reportedly refused to be bound by the 1894 Land Acquisition Act which regulates land acquisition and/or expropriation by the Government, and demanded the adoption of special laws in order to avoid the obligation to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of the affected communities.[12]

On 31 August 2006, five days after large and violent demonstrations against the Phulbari project, the Junior Minister for Food and Relief declared that the Government had revoked all existing agreements with Asia Energy and that a moratorium had been imposed on all open-pit mining in Bangladesh. On the same day, Asia Energy declared that it had received no official communication to that effect, and that the position of the Government remained to be clarified.[13] In practice, coal mining remains an important element in Bangladesh’s development strategy: on 17 November 2007, the Coal Policy Review Committee adopted a proposal encouraging partnerships between the Government and foreign firms engaged in mining in order to promote investment in and develop of the coal sector. The Committee also suggested strengthening the existing Bureau of Mineral Development so that it could deal more efficiently with foreign companies in leasing transactions and indicated its intention to establish coal-based power plants in rural areas.[14]

Local resistance to the project and violence against protesters

“What will happen to us if we are forced to move from here? What will happen to our livelihoods? I don't want us to live like this. Our mosques and holy places and the places we were born will be destroyed. What will happen to the graveyards of our ancestors?”
75-year-old man, resident of Phulbari sub-district[15]

Resistance to the proposed Phulbari project is widespread in the areas. On 26 August 2006, an estimated 50 to 100,000 demonstrators, mainly farmers and indigenous people, protested against the project.[16] At least five demonstrators were killed and about fifty others reportedly injured and taken to hospital after the police and the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) opened fire on demonstrators.[17] The exact death toll as a result of the shooting remains unclear, and may be as many as ten - it was reported that the BDR dumped some of the dead bodies.[18] Furthermore, the Bangaldeshi Daily Star newspaper reported that, according to eye-witnesses, BDR personnel threatened Magistrate Abdul Aziz with a gun in order to make him sign the authorization to open fire on the protesters.[19] Neither the Government nor the Asia Energy Corporation have taken any responsibility for these events.

Under the Emergency Rule declared by Bangladesh’s military government in January 2007, fundamental civil rights have been suspended and public protest banned.[20] These Emergency Rules effectively remove the possibility of the populations affected by the Phulbari mine engaging in peaceful protest, and OMCT expresses its strong concern that, should such protest nevertheless take place, they will be met with further and possibly more extreme violence on the part of the police and security forces.

Despite the violent suppression of public protest, resistance to the project remains high. On 15 December 2007, representatives of the sub-districts of Phulbari and neighbouring Birampur, Nababganj and Parbatipur wrote to the president and executive Directors of the Asian Development Bank expressing their concern that the project will “increase the poverty of the local population as well as cause environmental disaster”.[21] In this letter they claim that the social impact analysis carried out misrepresented the nature of public consultations around the project and that consultations emphasised the potential benefits of the project while failing to provide information on the negative impact. Furthermore, the community representatives express concern that only minimal information was provided in Bengali regarding the environmental impact of the project and that, to their knowledge, the environmental impact assessment has been neither translated nor summarised in the local language. They also underline that other media must be employed to communicate with a population of which approximately 60 per cent is illiterate. Additionally, they express serious concerns that land compensation and resettlement plans are insufficient to meet the losses likely to be incurred by local populations as a result of the mine, and that Asia Energy/GMC’s claim that 50,000 persons will be directly affected (and hence entitled to compensation) is a significant underestimation.

Economic Social and Cultural Rights

Bangladesh acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 5 October 1998, and consequently the Government of Bangladesh has the duty to ensure the protection, promotion and enjoyment of these rights for all its citizens. The Phulbari mine project jeopardises the human rights of thousands of people due to the mass evictions and destruction of agricultural land it will require and to the pollution that will result from the extraction activities. In particular, OMCT is concerned that the mine will seriously compromise the rights to health and to an adequate standard of living (including access to housing, land, adequate food and clean water) of those affected.[22]

OMCT also wishes to underline the comments of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, who has expressed his concerns that the resources of indigenous communities are being appropriated and utilised, without prior consent, by powerful economic consortia, and that this “is currently one of the most controversial issues involving indigenous people, the State, and private enterprises, and often also the international financial institutions.”[23] In addition, the recent UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples' Rights states that, “indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.”[24]

The role of financial investors

According to the information received, UBS, RAB Capital and Barclays financial institutions all have an interest in GCM, the sole owner of the Asia Energy Corporation and the Phulbari Coal Project. In particular, UBS is the second largest listed shareholder, owning 11.39% of GCM.[25]

OMCT regrets the lack of transparency demonstrated by UBS in responding to civil society queries regarding its involvement in the Phulbari project. In response to questions on its position, the Bank denied that it had any strategic interest in the company and, noting that “it does not comment on potential or specific client relations or transactions or its investments in any particular company” indicated that its purchase of GCM shares “may or may not” have been carried out on behalf of a third party or parties.[26] OMCT calls upon UBS, as a leading financial institution operating in the global market, to lead by example in establishing a more transparent system of accountability, assessing the human rights and environmental impact of potential investments and assuming responsibility for investments in activities that breach international law and violate human rights.

Requested actions: Please write to the Government of Bangladesh asking it to:

Instigate a thorough independent investigation into the human and environmental impact of the Phulbari coal mine project, ensuring the full and informed participation of all local communities. Make the findings of this investigation available in a public report (including appropriate language versions) and abide by the recommendations of this report. Request assistance from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to help ensure that the investigation is in conformity with international standards.

Impose a moratorium on any other open-pit mining in Bangladesh, as initially announced on 31 August 2006, until the full impact on human rights and the environment of this activity has been assessed.

Fully respect international human rights standards in any subsequent mining activity at Phulbari or elsewhere. This includes engaging in meaningful prior consultation with affected populations, ensuring that they are fully informed of the project proposals and their own rights in this regard, and providing fair and adequate compensation for loss of land, housing or livelihood where displacement is unavoidable. Ensure in all such cases an adequate and appropriate resettlement programme.
Ensure that the proposed coal policy review strictly adheres to international human rights standards and to international principles relating to forced evictions and indigenous peoples.

Lift the restrictions on public demonstrations imposed under emergency rule and take all necessary steps to prevent future episodes of violence by police and security forces against persons defending their human rights.

Please write to GCM Resources Plc asking it to:

Suspend activities in Phulbari until a thorough, independent and fully-consultative investigation into the proposed project’s human and environmental impact has been conducted and abide by the recommendations resulting from this investigation.
Fully respect the land rights, resources and livelihood of all local communities affected by any subsequent mining activity, and provide fair and adequate compensation wherever appropriate.

Take all necessary measures to minimise the environmental impact of mining activities and avoid the pollution of watercourses.

Comply fully with national laws and international human rights standards in all aspects of its activities, in particular as regards the adverse effects of these activities on indigenous and local communities. Only carry out operations subsequent to a full human rights impact assessment, and having fulfilled, inter alia, the legal requirement to engage in meaningful prior consultation with persons affected.

Please write to UBS, RAB Capital and Barclays asking them to:

Call for a thorough independent investigation into the human and environmental impact of the Phulbari coal mine project with the meaningful input of local communities.

Use their financial influence in GCM Resources Plc. to ensure that the company abides by the recommendations issuing from the independent investigation and to make certain that it complies fully with national laws and international human rights standards.

Carefully evaluate the impact of their current investments on the enjoyment of human rights around the world, and include a clear human rights impact assessment in future investment decisions. Promote greater transparency in their financial transactions.

Please write to the Asian Development Bank asking it to:

Recognise the discontent of the majority of the local population at the manner in which the preparatory phases of the Phulbari project have been conducted and insist on the production of a comprehensive human rights and environmental impact study with the full and informed participation of all local communities as a fundamental condition for financial support. Continue to monitor the human rights situation in Phulbari and surrounding sub-districts should the project be approved.

OMCT also asks the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, the UN Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing to monitor closely developments as regards the Phulbari coal mine project.

List of addresses

Government of Bangladesh and other Bangladeshi institutions

Cabinet of the Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh,

Cabinet Division,

Building No. 1, Room No. 301,

Bangladesh Secretariat,

Dhaka-1000,

Bangladesh.

Tel.: 88-02-7162099

Fax: 88-02-7160656



Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed,

Chief Adviser Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh,

Office of the Chief Advisor,

Tejgaon, Dhaka,

Bangladesh.

Tel: +880 2 8828160-79, 9888677

Fax: +880 2 8113244 or 3243 or 1015 or 1490



Barrister Moinul Hossain,

Adviser, Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs,

Bangladesh Secretariat,

Dhaka-1000,

Bangladesh.

Tel.: +88-02-7160627

Fax: +88-02-7168557



Mr. Mohammad Ruhul Amin,

Chief Justice,

Supreme Court of Bangladesh,

Supreme Court Building,

Ramna, Dhaka-1000

Bangladesh,

Fax: +880 2 9565058



Barrister Fida M Kamal,

Attorney General of Bangladesh,

Office of the Attorney General Supreme Court Building,

Ramna, Dhaka-1000,

Bangladesh.

Tel: +880 2 9562868

Fax: +880 2 9561568



Mr. Nur Mohammad,

Inspector General of Police (IGP),

Bangladesh Police,

Police Headquarters' Fulbaria,

Dhaka-1000

Bangladesh



Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations in Geneva, 65 rue de Lausanne,

1202 Geneva,

Switzerland,

Fax: +41 22 738 46 16,

E-mail: mission.bangladesh@ties.itu.int



Embassy of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in Brussels,

29-31 rue J. Jordaens,

1000 Brussels,

Belgium,

Fax: +32 2 646 59 98;

E-mail: bdootbrussels@freegates.be

Please also write to the Indian Embassy in your country.



The Mining Company

GCM Resources Plc,

2nd Floor, Foxglove House,

166 – 168 Piccadilly,

London, W1J 9EF,

United Kingdom,

Tel.: + 44 (0)20 7290 1630

Fax: + 44 (0)20 7290 1631

E-mail: info@gcmplc.com



Financial Interests


Mr. Marcel Ospel,

Chairman, UBS AG,

Bahnhofstrasse 45,

8001 Zürich

Switzerland



RAB Capital,

1 Adam Street,

London, WC2N 6LE,

United Kingdom.

Te.l: 0870 702 0000

Fax: 0870 703 6101



Barclays,

1 Churchill Place,

London, E14 5HP

United Kingdom.



The Asian Development Bank


The President and Executive Directors,

Asian Development Bank,

P.O. Box 789,

0980 Manila,

Philippines.

Tel.: + 632 632 4444

Fax: + 632 636 2444

E-mail: information@adb.org



Information on action taken and follow-up

OMCT would appreciate receiving information on any action taken in relation to the matters dealt with in this Action File so that it might be shared with OMCT’s network and others interested in this issue. Please quote the code of this appeal on the cover page in contacting us. ***

Geneva, 21 December, 2007

W o r l d O r g a n i s a t i o n A g a i n s t T o r t u r e

P.O. Box 21 - 1211 Geneva 8

Switzerland

Tel.: 0041/22 809 49 39 / Fax: 0041/22 809 49 29

E-mail: omct@omct.org / Web: www.omct.org

[1] Thanks to BanglaPraxis for support in preparing this appeal.

[2] Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/vol-I/issues-2-3/story01.htm#_ftnref4

[3]BBC News: Bangladesh coal divides region, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5080386.stm

[4] See Asian Development Bank – Projects, http://www.adb.org/Documents/PIDs/39933014.asp

[5] Open-pit mines are also known as opencast mines. Both terms refer to the extraction of rocks or minerals by excavating earth to create pits rather than sinking shafts and digging tunnels.

[6] The Daily Star: Rehabilitation issue makes it a tough task, http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/08/29/d6082901159.htm

[7] the Arabic term for “schools”.

[8]The Daily Star: Rehabilitation issue makes it a tough task, http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/08/29/d6082901159.htm

[9] BBC News: Bangladesh coal divides region, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5080386.stm

[10] Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/vol-I/issues-2-3/story01.htm#_ftnref4

[11]The Daily Star: Cancellation of Phulbari Coal Project demanded, http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/08/24/d608241004111.htm

[12] Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/vol-I/issues-2-3/story01.htm#_ftnref6

[13] Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/vol-I/issues-2-3/story01.htm#_ftnref4

[14]Government Prime Role Recommended in Coal Mining: http://phulbariresistance.blogspot.com/2007/11/govts-prime-role-recommended-in-coal.html

[15] BBC News: Bangladesh coal divides region, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5080386.stm

[16]Bangladesh News - Phulbari Coalmine Killing, 28 August 2006, http://www.bangladeshnews.com.bd/2006/08/28/phulbari-coalmine-killing-thousands-defy-ban-stage-protest/

[17]The people were identified as: Tariqul Islam (24 years-old), Ahsan Habib (35), Osman (24), Raju (8) and Chunnu. Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network, http://www.aitpn.org/IRQ/vol-I/issues-2-3/story01.htm#_ftnref4

[18]Bangladesh News: Phulbari Coalmine Killing, 28 August 2006 http://www.bangladeshnews.com.bd/2006/08/28/phulbari-coalmine-killing-thousands-defy-ban-stage-protest/

[19]The Daily Star: Magistrate forced to give firing order, http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/08/30/d6083001107.htm

[20] http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/01/bangladesh-media-restrictions-under.php

[21] see “Phulbari communities write to ADB President and Executive Directors”, http://banglapraxis.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/phulbari-communities-write-to-adb-president-and-executive-directors/

[22] The Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement prepared by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing clearly define forced evictions as a violation of human rights, Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement, A/HRC/4/18 5 February 2007

[23] A/HRC/4/32, 27 February 2007

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/110/99/PDF/G0711099.pdf?OpenElement

[24] UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Article 10, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement

[25] as of 15 November, 2007

[26] see http://www.banktrack.org/index.php?show=news&id=138