‘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.

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.

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

Phulbari Communities Write to ADB President and Executive Directors

December 15, 2007


To
President and Executive Directors
Asian Development Bank
Manila, Phillipines


Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to you on behalf of the people of Phulbari, Birampur, Nababganj and Parbatipur upazillas (subdistricts), Bangladesh to request Asian Development Bank (ADB) to remove its support of investment and political risk guarantee for the Phulbari Coal Mine Project. The ADB offers loans in the name of reducing poverty, but if realized, we believe that this project will increase the poverty of the local population as well as cause environmental disaster. The ADB will be helping Asia Energy, a private subsidiary of a UK owned corporation, in violating ADBs own policies regarding public disclosure and subsequently its environmental and social safeguards, Bangladesh laws and condoning internationally recognized human rights violations associated with this project. We have also learned that the planned project violates ADB’s own energy policy.

We address each of our concerns in turn and request that you take them with utmost seriousness.

1) Misrepresentation of Community Support in ADB document

Realizing that “good governance”, “transparency” and “accountability” are major tenets of your organisation, you should know that Asia Energy documents approved by you misrepresent facts as we have experienced them. For instance, the SEIA misrepresents the nature of public consultations held around this project and claims for “broad support” for the project. This is done not only through what the document claims but also by what it omits.

For the record, the vast majority of the Phulbari area communities were open to consultation up to January and February 2005 when little was revealed by Asia Energy about the technicalities and impacts of the mine—the fact that it would be an open pit mine. Up to that point, only promises were made about the benefits of the mine to the people. No negative impact of such technology was mentioned.

Once we educated ourselves on the fact that Asia Energy planned to have an open pit mine in the area that would impact large number of hectares, lead to de-watering, destruction of farming and other long term and short term consequences of the project, there has been clear and widespread opposition to the mine.

Land compensation and resettlement for the vast majority of the people in the area will not result in people being better off or even the same as before the project. The costs of destroying the land, our environment and thus our livelihoods are far greater than what a compensation package could give us.

While it is true that a handful of people have been in favor of the project, any attempt to state that the project has support from the citizens of the four upazillas has no factual basis. On August 26, 2006, this opposition was expressed by a peaceful march of close to 100,000 people from Phulbari and its adjacent areas demanding that Asia Energy leave Phulbari. Sadly, this march ended with the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) shooting into the crowd, with the instigation from Asia Energy and its brokers (dalals) of killing three people and injuring more than 200. Several articles and upcoming documentaries on this incident can be shared with you.

Some specific examples of the misrepresentation of facts in the ADB approved SEIA:

• The SEIA highlights two consultations (22 March and 7 Sept 2005) that supposedly represented local opinions; however, it fails to note that in July-August 2005, Phulbari Municipal Chairperson Shahjahan Ali Sarkar, on behalf of the municipality council, withdrew the “no objection” letter to the mine.

• The SEIA says that the information center has “an average of 20 people” visiting per day and that 80% of them have written “in support of the project.” The fact is that anyone entering the visitor’s center had to sign the book and this fact did not indicate support of the project. Secondly, many of those people listed as “supporting” the project were not from the area and some do not even exist! The ADB should not take these claims by Asia Energy as prima facie without verifying the truth on the ground.

• We know from certain NGO representatives that they have been associated with such consultations by Asia Energy claims, though in reality, they were never present. We are happy to discuss this with you in detail and provide contacts of these individuals. You should also know that several people of the communities have been either bribed or intimidated into attending these meetings.


2) EIA-related Documents did not exist in Appropriate Form or Language

• Potential project affected people have been given minimal information in Bengali about environmental and social impacts associated with the mine. Project information mainly consists of propaganda by the company in the form of brochures. We learned that only recently have they opened up a website in Bengali.

• We are unaware of any EIA having been translated or even summarized in the local language. This is in spite of the fact that about 60% of the population is illiterate in the area, and the majority of the literate population do not have internet access or adequate knowledge of English to process such information.

• We have been informed that information and a consultation should have been provided to us, as project affected people, when the EIA fieldwork began and when the draft was completed, in the appropriate local language and form. However, the majority of people in the area have no idea whether such consultations took place and who was present and whether documentation/information was provided in a manner that would enable input. The SEIA also does not provide this information.

• We believe that these issues are in direct violation of both your public communications policy and your policy on environmental safeguards.

3) Involuntary Resettlement Plans and Indigenous People’s Plan

• Given Asia Energy’s misrepresentations about consultations and opinions about the mine, the mistrust that has been generated by the company with the people of the area, it is highly unlikely that the company’s draft plans on these issues will be accepted by affected communities. There has never been any translation and availability of such material in an appropriate form or language, though we came to learn that such plans have been available on the Asia Energy website for months.

• There are serious issues of contention about whom we consider “affected” people. We do not accept that approximately 50,000 people would be affected by the project. Based on our census of number of families in each neighborhood, we believe that this number will range somewhere from 200,000 to 500,000.

• The population density in the area (4,245 people/sq. km) is extremely high combined with immense value of the land given that it is extremely rich in arable land, livestock, fisheries and forestry.

• Moreover, the communal harmony between the indigenous people and the Bengalis as well as different religious groups that has long existed in the area was threatened by the dubious activities of the company. On August 26, 2006, however, people from various religious and ethnic groups came together against such conspiracies.

4) Violation of Bangladesh Laws

Asia Energy’s contract with Bangladesh violates laws of the country. If ADB endorses this project, it will essentially endorse these violations of national law. For instance,

• Mines and Minerals Rules (MMR) of 1968 (amended in 1987 and 1989) stipulates 20% royalty on coal and other minerals; however Asia Energy negotiated a 6% royalty deal.

• The government did not officially endorse the original BHP contract in 1998 through a “gazette notification” and thus the contract transfer to Asia Energy also remains illegal

• According to the MMR 1968, Asia Energy was required to deposit three percent of the total value of investment as a Bank Guarantee, but failed to do so.

• Similary, clause 41 of MMR 1968 allows only 400 hectares for open-pit mining, but the Asia Energy project is for 5,900 acres.

• Clause 43 of the Rules allows for ten year leases with extension based on review. However, Asia Energy has been allowed a 35 year mining lease.

• Thus as it stands, Asia Energy has no legal basis as a project sponsor in Bangladesh on Phulbari. Finally, while ADB supports “competitive bidding” in contracts, this private sector project has not been a result of competitive bidding but a simple takeover from BHP.

5) ADB’s violation of its Energy Policy

We have also been informed that the ADB is not allowed to fund coal projects that are not specifically for power plants. Phulbari is far from a power generation project even though a 500 MW power plant is planned. Eighty percent of Phulbari coal will go towards exports to international markets and India. Some of the coal would be used for steel. Thus, it appears that the ADB is also violating its own Energy Policy in supporting this project.


Conclusion

The long struggle of the people of Phulbari and the sacrifices made for this cause firmly state that open pit coal mining in a densely populated region like Bangladesh will not be accepted by the local people. Coal extracted from this country should only be used for the benefit of this country. No percentage of the coal will be exported. Therefore, we, the people of this potential mining area, request the ADB to remove its financial support and political risk guarantee from the Phulbari project. In doing so, the ADB will avoid violating its own policies as well as take a firm stance on behalf of the people. Otherwise, it would be obvious that the ADB is taking a position against national interest, the environment and the people of Bangladesh by prioritizing the business interests of a company like Asia Energy.

Conservationists’ group terms ADB ‘corporate lobbyist’

NewAge, October 7, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port on Saturday protested against the Asian Development Bank’s role as ‘corporate lobbyist’ for Asia Energy and Tata Group. It also blasted energy and finance advisers to the government for their reported willingness to start stalled negotiations with Asia Energy on Phulbari coal field.

‘We are concerned and annoyed at media reports that a visiting ADB mission is lobbying and pressurising the government in favour of Asia Energy and Tata projects,’ professor Anu Muhammad, member secretary of the committee, said at a press conference at Dhaka Reporters Unity.

ADB officials are lobbying for the Asia Energy venture even before the Manila-based lender’s board is yet to approve the project, which was being framed in violation of ADB’s own guidelines for public consultation, dissemination of information, protection of environment and respect for peoples’ verdict, he said.

The economics professor questioned why two advisers of the government were searching for opportunity to renegotiate with the UK-based mining company. He alleged that ABD was planning to invest the member-states’ money to benefit some companies, not the people. Professor Anu demanded that the interim government must scrap the ‘shady agreement’ the previous government signed with Asia Energy and that the national coal policy, which is in the making, exclude open-pit mining method.

Committee convenor Sheikh Muhammad Shaheedullah said the people would not accept if the government agrees to Tata’s proposals for supplying huge quantity of gas at a time when the country’s gas reserve was depleting and power and fertiliser plants were facing gas shortage. Committee leaders Golam Rabbani, Akmal Hossain, Shamsul Alam, Tipu Biswas, Ruhin Hossain Prince and Zonayed Saki were present at the press conference.

Govt to consider renegotiation with Asia Energy after coal policy finalised

NewAge, October 5, 2007

Energy adviser Tapan Chowdhury on Thursday said that the government would decide whether to renegotiate the controversial Phulbari coal-field agreement with Asia Energy after the coal policy is finalised. ‘Asia Energy has requested renegotiation on the Phulbari agreement and has softened its position. It has proposed some nice things. It wants to set up a power plant, and supply the water that will extracted from the coal-mine to the adjacent villages,’ Tapan told reporters after a meeting with an Asian Development Bank delegation.

The visiting director-general of ADB’s South Asia Department, Kurio Senga, offered to extend all kinds of financial assistance in developing Bangladesh’s coal sector, including the Phulbari coal-mine. He asked the government to take a quick decision on Asia Energy’s plan to develop the Phulbari coal-mine and the Tata Group’s investment proposal.

Tapan told reporters that he had assured the ADB delegation that the government would take a decision on Asia Energy’s development plan after finalisation of the coal policy. When Senga was asked whether he was aware of the government’s agreement with the people of Phulbari to scrap the coal-field deal, he replied in the negative.

The government signed an agreement with protesters to scrap the deal with Asia Energy after the killing of three persons by law enforcers while they were protesting against the open-pit mining method proposed by Asia Energy last year.

Tapan said that they would take a decision on the issue after getting the law ministry’s opinion on the agreement.

Proposals of Tata, Asia Energy have to wait

NewAge, October 4, 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh

Decisions on investment proposals of Tata Group and Asia Energy are set to take some more time due to confusion over gas reserves and absence of coal policy, finance adviser Mirza Azizul Islam said on Wednesday. ‘We are giving wrong signal to foreign investors as we cannot decide on investment proposals of Tata and Asia Energy,’ he said to reporters at his planning ministry office after a meeting with a visiting Asian Development Bank executive.

The long-pending investment proposals came up for discussion at the meeting with Kunio Senga, ADB director general for South Asia, who is now in Dhaka. The Manila-based development bank offers Bangladesh assistance in developing coal sector amid differences of opinion among Bangladesh’s mining experts and conservationists over the mining method— whether it will be open-pit or underground. The debate led to a bloody outrage in Phulbari coalmine area last year. The finance adviser said the government will settle the Asia Energy issue once the coal policy is formulated.

Meanwhile, the UK-based mining company has expressed its willingness to start renegotiations with the government on Phulbari coalmine development. ‘We’ve told them that we will seriously look into the terms and conditions for the negotiations after finalisation of national coal policy,’ he said.

About the long-drawn-out $3 billion investment proposals of Indian conglomerate Tata, the adviser said it is a complicated matter and the gas reserve issue is closely linked to it. ‘As the terms and conditions have a provision for ensuring uninterrupted gas supply for several years, we’ll have to assess our actual gas reserve as there are several findings in this regard, and we’re not sure which one is correct,’ Aziz said.

He also discussed with the ADB executive matters relating to recent floods and post-flood rehabilitation. Aziz said the government formed a committee headed by the planning secretary to assess the flood damages and rehabilitation needs. ‘Rough estimates suggest the flood damages will be within $200 to $250 million,’ he told a questioner. ‘After the finance adviser’s visit to Manila, we realised that the flood in Bangladesh was severe and we formed a team for needs assessment,’ Kunio Senga said after the meeting. ‘Hopefully, we’ll be able to provide assistance for flood rehabilitation,’ he said without giving any figure.

Killings in Phulbari Ignite Unstoppable Protest: Local Communities Stand Strong against Open Cut Mining

From the Archive. SEHD Report. www.sehd.org Photo: Philip Gain/SEHD

Phulbari town in Dinajpur district is burning in people’s anger and also in fire. The situation has turned from bad to worse. This is a consequence of the killing of at least five persons on 26 August during a massive protest of farmers, ethnic communities and those of the town against Asia Energy, a UK-based company. The foreign company has been exploring coal and intending to initiate an open cut mine in this northwestern corner of Bangladesh.

The demand for expulsion of the company from Phulbari and also from the country has become stronger after the killing on 26 August. The protesters set a deadline for the foreign company’s exit at 11:00 A.M. on 28 August. Given that Asia Energy’s employees were still there, the angry protesters burnt the information center of Asia Energy and ransacked its laboratory that stores samples of coal extracted from 150 drilling sites. Finding no way out, the Asia Energy staff then sealed their main office and left Phulbari in a roundabout way, viz., through Dinajpur, under police escort. The people also ransacked and burnt the houses of a number of people identified to be accomplices of Asia Energy.

The National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port organized the protest against the open cut mining and seize of Asia Energy’s offices. Around 50,000 protesters from villages in the mine area and those of Phulbari town took to the streets and approached the offices of Asia Energy to demonstrate their “no” to the foreign company’s attempt of open cut mining. Hundreds of paramilitary forces—BDR, police and other security agencies—heavily guarded the offices of Asia Energy. It is reportedly the BDR that opened fire on the demonstrators, killing at least five people and injuring many others. This caused uproar among the protesters.

This is an unprecedented scenario at a time when Bangladesh is hoping for a major step forward in the mining industry and attracting Foreign Direct Investing (FDI). But the trouble has grown out of the method of mining, viz., open cut, requiring massive relocation of people. People in the mine footprint are dead against the open cut mining although the company has always set aside peoples’ discontent.

On 26 August the protesters including ethnic communities assembled at the Dhaka Morh (circle), the entrance of the Phulbari town. They had sticks in their hands. The Santals joined with their drums, bows and arrows. Led by the leaders of the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port, the protesters began their march towards the offices of Asia Energy at about 3:30 P.M. On the way to the main office of the company, some stones were thrown at Asia Energy’s information center that is located in the middle of the town. The main part of the Phulbari town lies on the east side of Chhoto Jamuna river with a small bridge over it. The security forces put barricades at the bridge site. The leaders of the national committee talked to Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), who according to Prof. Anu Muhammad, gave his words to move the Asia Energy out of the town.

According to eyewitness some protesters crossed the river. A rally also approached from the western side of the river. The protesters on the western side of the river actually came under massive gunshots from the BDR and teargas shells from the police. The bloodshed led to a seemingly unstoppable protest leading to a continued strike in Phulbari and the burning of houses of beneficiaries or accomplices of Asia Energy.

The home minister has asked for inquiry into the causes of peoples’ discontent in Phulbari. Newspapers on 27 August reported Asia Energy’s Chief Officer Mr. Garry Lye’s statement: “It is most unfortunate that unrepresentative outsiders have come to cause trouble in our community”. Actually Lye pointed his finger at the organizers of the protest and seize program. Condemning what Lye says about the organizers, Md. Khorshed Alam Moti, the joint convener of the Phulbari Raksha Committee, said to this writer: “The people of Phulbari and others of the mine area spontaneously participated in the protest program on 26 August. No outsider came to Phulbari to cause trouble. We want to get rid of Asia Energy. We want Asia Energy’s immediate expulsion from our land.”

What has been happening in Phulbari is tragic and it is important that all concerned honestly look into the factors that has led to this catastrophic situation.

The project

An Australian company, BPH, started the coal exploration in Phulbari area. The Bangladesh government signed a contract with BPH through an open tender. In 1998, the contract was transferred to Asia Energy. Asia Energy, after estimation of coal reserve, has submitted to the government a plan of operation. The government has already granted environment clearance to the company.

According to Asia Energy, 5,900 hectares or 59 sq. km. land area is required for the mine. The area covers more than a hundred villages of seven unions in four Upazilas—Phulbari, Birampur, Nawabganj and Parbatipur—and part of Phulbari Sadar Upazila, under Dinajpur district. Thousands of acres of cropland fall within its boundaries.

The area of Phulbari Thana Sadar that falls within the project area has brick-built houses, schools, colleges, tarmacked roads, railroads, business facilities and so forth. Outside the township lie vast crop fields, forest patches and plantations. Beneath the expanse of beautiful landscapes lies the 38m thick (on an average) coal fossilised over 270 million years. According to Asia Energy the coal reserve in this mine is 572 million tons. The company believes, if explored, more coal will be traced in the south of the present mine.

Who benefit and who lose from open pit mining?

Appointed by Asia Energy, GHD, an international organisation, prepared a report for the company that claims Bangladesh will receive benefits worth US$21 billion over the 30 years of the mine's lifetime. Of this, US$7.8 billion will come as a direct benefit and US$ 13.7 billion, as indirect or multiplier benefits. The mine itself and the coal-fired plant for production of electricity will contribute one percent per annum to the GDP of the country.

The inhabitants of the mine area complain that people living in other parts of the country do not realize their plight, nor do they foresee the disaster the open pit mining is likely to cause to this region.

"We heard there is a coal deposit in this area. But the people engaged by Asia Energy did not let us know that the method for mining would be open cut, which necessitates eviction and destruction of our houses, schools, colleges and all other establishments in the mine footprint. All of us, irrespective of party affiliations, are against it," said Md. Khurshid Alam Moti, leader of the Phulbari Raksha Committee. He is also the principal of Phulbari Women's Degree College and chairman of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) in Phulbari.

According to Asia Energy that is in contract with Bangladesh government for exploration of coal, 40,000 people need to be relocated from the mine footprint. But according to Phulbari Raksha Committee that is composed of people from all parties at the local level contend the company’s estimate. “We understand that about 150,000 people of the mine area will be directly affected and 200,000 to 250,000 would be affected indirectly,” said Moti.

Nima Banik, a lecturer at Phulbari Women's Degree College says, "No matter wherever we are put, if we get evicted from our homes, we will lose our traditions, social organization and businesses. These losses are beyond compensation. Moreover, we do not trust Asia Energy. Its estimate is unfounded."

M. Anwarul Islam, Asia Energy's general manager (environment and community) disagreed and said, "We have always mentioned the idea of open pit. In Phulbari, there is no other option." According to the company all the damages will be compensated and the condition of the inhabitants of the mine area will be better than before. However, the aura of distrust and the demand of the locals is clear: "We do not want open pit mining." From June 2005 the Phulbari Raksha Committee has been organising processions and meetings every Saturday in Phulbari in protest against it.

Asia Energy claims that Bangladesh has no risk in the Phulbari mine project. The company claims that Bangladesh will receive half of the total profit accrued from the mining operation. The profit includes 6 percent royalty, 45 percent corporate tax and 2.5 percent import duty. The other gains of Bangladesh as the company mentions will be "a new source of energy for the country, a new commodity for export, new industries, employment opportunities, regional development, poverty alleviation, growth of nascent industry, new rail and port infrastructure."

Professor Anu Muhammad's fear is: "It is Bangladesh where the coal has been found; and a foreign company will become its owner. There is no proper way to measure the actual benefit of Bangladesh and the price it would have to pay for it. What becomes clear is Bangladesh will have to buy its own coal from the company at an international price."

Impacts on environment

A serious concern of open pit mining is its environmental impacts. The method requires the mine area to be completely dewatered so that the hollow of the mine does not get immersed in water. Not an easy task. Large pumps are required to suck out underground water around the mine round-the-clock during the entire lifetime of the project. The impact on the already dry Barind Tract is obvious. Water level runs lower in Barind Tract during dry season and make it difficult for the tubewells to draw water. When dewatering starts for the mining, the shallow and deep tubewells will not draw enough water for farmers in the larger area near the mine.

Asia Energy's solution is to distribute the water pumped out among the farmers. It is an open question if the water distribution would be even-handed. The government and non-government organizations have been trying many options including tree plantation for many years now to prevent desertification in north Bengal. If dewatering in the mining area hastens the desertification process, pouring water above the ground remains a doubtful viable option for agricultural sustainability.

According to Asia Energy sources the average thickness of coal's layer in Phulbari is 38m. In order to reach the layer of the coal, overburden between 150 and 250m needs to be removed, leaving a thousand-foot deep hollow. Once used up, the hollow will be filled with earth and a new area will be dug out. The area filled up does not become useful in many years. According to a high official in Asia Energy, topsoil will be removed and preserved once the mining operation begins in a particular block. Topsoil will be brought back and spread on the top of the area filled in. But no one can say when the land becomes cultivable again. The other question is: will the company fill the hollow with the same care as it is done in the developed countries? Non-compliance of existing laws is a common practice in Bangladesh.

At the final stage of the mining operation, in about 30 years after the operation begins, Bangladesh will get a huge lake that according to the company will be filled up with fresh water providing a big source of water, fishery and recreation. But mining experts warn that the final hollow, after 30 years of digging and other activities, will contain toxic substances. It may not be realistic to envision this polluted lake becoming a source of fresh water.

Handling the other forms of environment pollution is also a challenge. There will be routine dynamite explosion inside the mine to break the rocks and the coal. Heavy machinery will be set up in and outside the mine. Heavy 240-ton trucks and trains will carry the coal causing noise pollution. Coal dust will be a major source of air pollution. If the enormous amount of polluted water generated from washing of the coal is not properly treated before it is dumped into surrounding water bodies, it will kill fish and other forms of life. Further, the earth through such deep digging and many types of pollution will lose all its micro-organisms. Air pollution from burning of coal to produce electricity is a big concern. Air polluting agents such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic will contaminate earth, water, plants and animals.

Eliminating pollutants is extremely difficult. Asia Energy expects to keep the pollution within a tolerable level. However, there is a fear that the company will not adopt adequate measures to mitigate pollution because these involve much effort and cash.

Transportation of the coal is another concern. In order for marketing, the coal will be carried to the deep seaport through the Sundarbans. New seaport and railroads need to be built for this. On the positive end, this will create employment and bring in revenue, but it also adversely affects the environment of the Sundarbans (the largest mangrove forest on earth). The noise and water pollution created by the Mongla Port has already become a threat to the animals, plants and other life forms in the mangrove forest. The added transportation over the 30 years of the mine's lifetime will increase threats to the Sundarbans.

The environment and social impact assessment (EIA and SIA) of the Phulbari Coal Project has already been carried out and approved by the Department of Environment of Bangladesh government. Three hundred consultants of several international and national companies, some Bangladeshi environmental organizations and individuals have done the EIA and SIA. They have produced 2,600-page reports after 18 months of work. This is where many question if the EIA and SIA commissioned by the same company that will extract the coal have been impartial. Asia Energy claims it will do all that is needed for the protection of environment and social harmony.

Although the people of mine area and their supporters stand against the open pit project, they are not against extraction of the coal in general. Their understanding is that the ownership of the coal and fate of the affected people just cannot be handed down to a foreign company. They suggest waiting until the country develops its own mining expertise and technology. "We may give our consent when the country will be able to mine the coal resource with our own technology," said Principal Moti. There are many others whose voices join with Principal Moti's.

Asia Energy had turned down the demand of the Phulbari people to wait until Bangladesh builds its own expertise and mining technology. It says that by the time Bangladesh has it own mining expertise and resources, the fossil fuel may not be required any longer. The company claims that it is high time to extract the coal. Now the local communities have contested the company with their blood.

Looking ahead

The past week has been a week of violence, expression of anger and mistrust of the people of Phulbari town and the mine area. All that has happened there has shaken the whole nation. The whole world has also looked at Bangladesh with concern and curiosity. It is difficult to predict how Phulbari will return to normal life. Application of the state security forces against the people has caused uproar in their minds. They send a very strong message to the state agencies and the company that it is their land that contains 270 million year old coal. It is them who decide if the resource is to be shared in the best interest of the community and the nation. It is the state that must protect the land and the communities. It was certainly a fatal mistake to attempt to resolve a serious human problem with bullets and teargas. If the state of Bangladesh is really for the people, its functionaries must bow before the people’s power and salute their courage. If that happens, it will be a step forward for providing political protection to those who need it most.

Projects of Mass Destruction (PMD) and Asian Development Bank (ADB): The Case of Phulbari Coal Project

Anu Muhammad, The National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Port, Bangladesh

In a press conference on 27 March 2007, Hua Du, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country director in Bangladesh expressed ADB’s eagerness for the quick decisions in favour of big Indian corporate group TATA’s proposals related with gas and coal, and British company Asia Energy’s (AEC) Phulbari Coal Project (PCP).

Hua Du categorically stated, 'Business is business. You would have to decide whether to grab it or not’. She also added that, 'the offer of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) won't wait, they will go away, it is vital to take decision1. The report of leading English weekly further stated, ‘In case of Asia Energy, analysts feel that there is little room to say 'yes' as the shady project has already claimed lives of people in Phulbari, the project site in Dinajpur district. Moreover, the proposed coal policy is very controversial. Thus, the incumbent government needs to review the coal policy very carefully before saying anything in final terms.’ (Holiday, April 1, 2007)

It is important to note that about seventy thousand people were gathered in Phulbari on 26 August 2006 to protest against the proposed open pit mining PCP. They were bullet shot by government forces while returning from the protest rally. Hundreds were injured, about 20 people got permanent injury and three were killed. Instead of stopping protest people multiplied in road and mass uprising happened. After days of intensive protest participated by Bangalee, Adibashi (indigenous people), women, men, senior and children, government accepted defeat and signed contract with the protestors.

That historic social contract stated clearly, among others,

1. ‘Phulbari coal project will be scrapped and Asia energy will leave the country.’

2. ‘No open pit mining will be allowed anywhere in the country’.

3. ‘Steps for coal development and utilization will be taken after proper consultation with the people keeping national interest intact’.

Meanwhile an expert committee formed by the government submitted its report that opined that the project should be cancelled in environmental, economic and legal consideration. Nevertheless, nothing could change ADB’s mindset. Why Asian Development Bank is on the one hand so enthusiastic to back AEC, and remain indifferent about experts’ opinion about the Project or local peoples clear NO to the project on the other? Why profit for a company is preferable for ADB even if it costs peoples lives, livelihood and environmental disaster although their written commitments say otherwise?

ADB for PMDs

If anybody looks at ADB funded projects and their consequences in Bangladesh one should not surprise with its present role on Phulbari project. ADB is generally known as the World Bank in Asia, that always goes hand in hand with the World Bank and IMF in neoliberal policies that put corporate profit as the supreme objective at the cost of peoples lives and environment. This may be unknown to the people of developed countries, whose money is spent on these institutions in the name of development and poverty reduction, we find this ‘business as usual’ practice of ADB, like the World Bank and the IMF in larger scale.

ADB so far has funded numerous projects in Bangladesh. ADB funded project in forestry created deforestation in different places and make forest land a private business. Development projects, for example, in Chokoria, Cox'sbazar destroyed forest and salinized land in order to give space to export oriented shrimp cultivation. Project in Modhupur turned forests into rubber plantation and land of cash crop, gave business to few and created high insecurity amongst indigenous people (Gain, 1998, 2006).

On March 18, 2007 Choles Ritchil, a leader of the indigenous Garo people living in the Modhupur forest area was killed after barbaric torture by the government forces, another leading person was killed on January 3, 2004 by police firing for opposing an eco-park project. ADB has been involved in forestry projects for social forestry and many other plantation and cash crop projects. These funding and policies towards deforestation, privatization and marketization strengthened market and business orientation. A network of beneficiaries of these orientation want to go further by evicting Garo people in the name of ill conceived Modhupur forest Eco-Park project, under which a wall is being constructed around 3,000 acres of Modhupur forests. This wall will destroy the forest and disrupt the livelihood of the Garo and other indigenous people who live in the area and depend on the Modhupur forests for their livelihood.

ADB funded projects in water and irrigation gave business to local-foreign consultants and contractors a good business but created permanent water logging in different parts of the country. In southern part of Bangladesh, the success and failure of project put lives of about 2 million people in a horrible situation (Islam and Kibria 2006). In education sector ADB projects created path for privatization, high corruption and disastrous reform. Protests from teachers and students compelled previous government to stop from implementing reforms but huge money wasted in the process. ADB was successful in lending, but Bangladesh became indebted for creating mess.

In energy sector, ADB has been involved since early 1980s in formulating policies to privatize common property and to create favourable path for foreign corporate. Along with the World Bank, projects of the ADB helped MNCs to grab natural resources in terms and conditions very unfavourable for people of this country along with dismantling of national institutions and erosion of capabilities (Muhammad, 2003). How did that happen? Let me point out the steps taken by the ADB and the World Bank regarding this sector as follows:

Step 1: Study on Energy by the ADB and the World Bank provided a policy prescription to restructure and downsize public sector organizations in order to create space for foreign private sector (since 1982).

Step 2: Argument followed that the foreign private investment would provide an inflow of foreign currency, would ensure remarkable development of the energy sector and would contribute to develop other sectors as well. Precondition of this was to downsize or dismantling public institutions (1980s).

Step 3: Constant advocacy by the ADB and the World Bank for rising price of gas and electricity (since 80s).

Step 4: Gas blocks awarded to the Multinational Corporations. As a result of the contracts Bangladesh became trapped to purchase its own gas with triple of the price from local company and with foreign currency. National exploration agency has been kept idle. Budget deficit and negative effect on foreign exchange reserve increased due to obligation to foreign company. Similar things happened in power sector since 1993.

Step 5: Further increase of the price of gas and power along with export of gas have been prescribed by the ADB and the World Bank to avert further crisis and to ensure further development since 1997.

The results of these steps have been disastrous for the economy and the people. Because,

(1) price of gas and power on a continuous increase, as a result of that

(2) cost of production at every level increased that resulted fall in competitiveness of Bangladeshi product;

(3) hard earned currency are being used to purchase gas and electricity which could be bought with local currency at a much cheaper rate;

(4) dismantling of local production skill and exploration establishment;

(5) financial losses of state agencies, as a consequence, reaches huge;

(6) common property becomes private property being used to maximize corporate profit and

(7) public non-renewable resources like natural gas becomes huge liability.

The same instruments and similar arguments are being used to rationalize further grabbing of coal and gas resources by Indian big corporate body TATA and British company Asia Energy Corporation (now named as Global Coal Management) in multiple disastrous projects. ADB is still using its power and influence derived from public money to serve companies at the cost of people and environment.

This is a ‘road map’ to ensure gravitation of businesses to big corporate bodies and yet creating and trumpeting a myth that these are for development and poverty reduction. People in Phulbari gave their lives to stop PCP, one of such projects and gave signal that people will not accept FDI that goes against national interest and creates disaster for present and future generations. ADB makes its stand clear against peoples’ verdict.

Natural gas, Coal and Oil resources: Constraints for Bangladesh

In order to ensure energy security of a country like Bangladesh and to find the best possible path to explore natural resources we need to keep following constraints in mind:

1. Oil, gas and coal are non-renewable resources, cannot be reproduced;

2. These resources are limited, while domestic demand is growing;

3. Global uncertainty and conflicts on oil, gas and coal mark insecurity for the weak countries;

4. Energy price rising and becomes unpredictable.

To ensure best possible utilization of energy resources in present and future, every steps concerning exploration, production and utilization of these resources should be transparent. The contracts patronized by ADB or World Bank-IMF has always been secretive. To ensure energy security:

• The sector should be organized with an objective to fulfill energy demand (present and future) of people and the productive sectors;

• Peoples ownership and authority over their own resources must be ensured;

• Development of national institutions and capability must be get the highest priority.

However, main features of government policies derived from ADB, WB support to date are:

• There has never been any attempt so far to have comprehensive energy policy and related steps that is consistent with national interest and energy security of the people.

• Non-renewable resources have always been considered as something tradable.

• Privatization and commercialization of gas, coal and oil has been on the top priority.

• Global agencies systematically worked to grab the resources in favour of global corporate. Foreign aided development projects were utilized to formulate policies in this regard. Energy sector study project of 1982, Energy regulatory commission
in 1993, Gas sector master plan and Coal policy in 2006 are some of the examples where World bank, Asian Development Bank were involved.

• Dismantling of national agencies, undermining national capabilities, ignoring national needs in short and long term have been common.

Phulbari Coal Project: Why people and experts oppose?

The Phulbari coalfield was the latest discovery among the big four coalfields found in Bangladesh since independence. In 1994 the then government signed agreement with the BHP of Australia, in 1998 BHP transferred its right to one year old British- Australian company Asia Energy Corporation (AEC).

The AEC was preparing itself for open-pit mining. It said in its documents, ‘Mining by the open cut method is new to Bangladesh, but it is a proven and highly productive and safe method in similar geological and hydrological conditions in other parts of the world such as Australia, India, Indonesia and Germany.’ It goes without saying that projecting such a sweeping comparative statement as expert opinion is ill motivated. Leaving aside other criteria, the population and water aspect in Phulbari is entirely different from the reality in other countries like Australia or Germany even India or Indonesia.

The AEC further stated in defense of open-pit mining: ‘Adoption of this method will permit the fullest extraction of coal resources, and will augment duration of the mining period and thus enhance socio-economic opportunity, income prospects and gains for the Bangladesh economy.’ It was not made clear who would bear the cost and who would be the beneficiaries of this ‘fullest extraction’! We know the beneficiaries are company and allies while losers are the people and the country.

Key points of the Project are:

• The latest figure for the extractable quantity of coal in Phulbari is 572 million tonnes. Besides coal, the mine contains high-grade silica (sand), ceramic clay, Madhupur clay and gravels and rocks of high quality.

• The coalfield will extend over 135 sq km. Again, the area, which can be affected directly or indirectly during the mining operation including de-watering, will be nearly 656 sq km.

• This area is very fertile, paddy output is high, and nearly all the land yields three crops per year!

• The business activities in the non-agricultural sector are also expanding fast.

• The density of population is very high, 4245 per sq km.

• The company says, as the mine advances during the first 5 to 10 years, between 15,000 and 20,000 people will have to be resettled, and over the 30-year life of the mine, the total number of people resettled could be 50,000. According to the local
sources, the affected number of people may go beyond 2,00,000!

• Because of the coal-mining operations, the production activities of the entire area in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry will be totally destroyed and will remain unproductive for an indefinite period! The products here include Aman, Aus, IRRI and Boro varieties of rice, wheat, mustard, potato, corn, banana, sugarcane, jute, chilli, garlic, onion, vegetables of all varieties, and numerous fruit-bearing and timber trees.

• There are also rivers and canals, beels, and fish farms numbering over a thousand, and farms that rear ducks, hens and cattle, etc. Besides the above, there are many shops, and business and commercial houses. Economic activities in the entire area will come to an end.

• Desertification will ruin lives and livelihoods in greater area beyond mine site.

• Water contamination in the mining area may affect total water system of the country because of its network.

• AEC stated that ‘during the operation of the mine, 2,100 short-term and 1,100 long-term positions would be available for employment’. AEC has been deafeningly silent about the fact that livelihood of over 2,00,000 people will be
destroyed by its operation.

• If we consider only coal in the mine, AEC could make profit Taka 1,500 billion (more than US$ 200 billion) in thirty years.

• On the other hand, Bangladesh could receive, by way of 6 per cent royalty and taxes, $7 billion or Tk 48,000 crore in thirty years, little over Tk 1,500 crore per year. In this context, it should be noted that currently the export earning of Bangladesh has exceeded Tk 60,000 crore per year. Bangladeshis working abroad send foreign exchange remittances worth around Tk 30,000 crore per year.

• According to company’s account, considering the adverse effect on production and economic activities, the total loss for Bangladesh will be Tk 1,800 crore per annum! So net loss per year would be 300 crore taka in addition to loss of coalfield and environment.

Problems, Flaws and Irregularities with the project:

1. The contract signed with the Asia energy shows royalty to be paid to the government of Bangladesh as 6 per cent of the production, although the original contract with BHP had been 20 per cent.

2. The coalfield was transferred from BHP to AEC in 1998, but no gazette notification was served at the time.

3. Submission of development plan as PCP needed a deposit of 3 percent Bank guarantee but no deposit was made.

4. Mines and minerals Rules 1968 (amended in 1987 and 1989) According to clause 41, it allows only 400 hectares for open-pit, but the AEC's project is for nearly 6000 hectares. The land allocated for the mine was more than 10 times than the existing law permits.

5. According to clause 43 leases can be made only for 10 years and extension can be made upon review but in AEC's case, it is for 35 years.

6. According to international law, practices and convention, any development project requires consent of local people where the project is to be implemented. Asia Energy has made lies and false campaign on this claiming people have consent on the project.

7. The company did not publish its plan and document to the people of the area and did not go for circulating. Only thing they circulated is a propaganda sheet hiding consequences and glorifying the project.

8. UN convention categorically stated that if any project area has indigenous inhabitants than it is mandatory to have full consent from them. The PCP was advancing completely against the opinion of indigenous people.

9. After obvious failure to convince people on the project Asia Energy was engaged in bribing people with cash and kind to become informer against agitating people, they also tried to terrorize people by hiring and organizing mastans and goons.

10. Long before getting final work, order Asia Energy started mobilizing capital from London stock market. `Some 48 million shares were floated in 2004, rocketing up to a price of 900 pence a share by March 2005, for a total market capitalization of
over $800 million, six months before the Department of Environment of the Government of Bangladesh granted
Environmental Clearance for mining on 11 September 2005. Asia Energy envisioned a $1.1bn (£578m) investment and was
negotiating for backing from the Asian Development Bank and the US Ex-Im Bank.' (Analytical monthly review, 15.10.06).

Conclusion

If AEC and its local commission agents and collaborators could succeed in implementing their sinister plan, the foreign company would leave Bangladesh after grabbing an astronomical sum as profit, and the sycophantic agents and devious politicians would be bloated by commission money gorged by them, and today’s green, living and thriving Phulbari would be permanently consigned to the status of a disfigured wasteland. No one can predict what would be the condition of the people remaining in the region.

Therefore, the Phulbari project is nothing but a project of mass destruction and genocide. It is economically irrational, environmentally disastrous to a scale unprecedented in the country. It is legally flawed, corrupt and deceptive.

People of Phulbari by sacrificing lives halted this project. They have written peoples verdict in blood:

• People will not accept any FDI that goes against interest of the people and the country;

• People will not honour any contracts secretly signed by the commission agents, keeping people in the dark and against their will;

• Natural resources are common good; this cannot be privatized for corporate profit that must be used for people’s need and development.

We must recall that in 1964 USAID funded a Hydroelectric project in Chattagram, south east of Bangladesh, that evicted nearly one hundred thousand indigenous people. Most of them are still not resettled, not being compensated. Although that project generated some electricity, but permanent conflict created by the project till today cost Bangladesh went beyond benefits decades ago. Power generation also now facing crisis. Meanwhile whole peaceful and beautiful landscape turned into an area of conflict, gave birth to insurgency, resulted militarization, caused regular casualties and drainage of public money. Distrust, violence, blood bath all continues. USAID was successful in project sense; generations in the country are paying for their sin.

Comparatively, Phulbari coal project is much more disastrous in many ways. Nevertheless, ADB is showing determination to go with the project. If this can make a success TATA will come with another open pit for Barapukuria, adjacent area. People in Phulbari area showed their determination to protect their lives and national interest. If anybody now goes with the project, in another way, asks for genocide in different forms. Now people of countries that dominate ADB have to take a decision whether they want to see their money being utilized to invite genocide, mass destruction, environmental disaster just to satisfy vulgar greed of a company.