Intimidation, pressure alleged in Phulbari coalfield area

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.

Greenwash and How to Encourage it: One World Trust studies what ADB says, not what it does

One World Trust’s “Global Accountability Report” looks only at policies and not at what the organisations analysed do in practice.

By Chris Lang. December 2007

In its more than 40 years of existence, the Asian Development Bank has financed projects that have dammed rivers, bulldozed forests, pumped pollution into the air and rivers and evicted Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Since 1994, 1.77 million people have been evicted from their homes to make way for ADB-financed projects. The Bank is fundamentally unaccountable to the people affected by its projects.

Yet in its 2007 “Global Accountability Report”, the UK-based NGO One World Trust gave the ADB an accountability score of 81 per cent, ranking the Bank ADB second out of the 30 organisations studied. “Independent Report Gives ADB High Marks for Accountability,” gushes the ADB’s press release. ADB Vice-President C. Lawrence Greenwood Jr. describes One World Trust’s report as a “useful tool that can help ADB measure its effectiveness as a development institution in promoting transparency and other dimensions of accountability through its policies and work.”

One World Trust’s report only looks at policies on paper. “Inevitably,” states the report, “variation between policy commitments made by an organisation and what happens in practice on the ground may occur.” One World Trust makes no attempt to address this problem. “The study therefore does not claim to offer a full and definitive assessment of an organisation’s accountability.”

The ADB’s press release is in breach of its own Public Communications Policy which states that “ADB has a responsibility to provide the public with a clear, balanced picture of its work.” A balanced picture would include reference to the thousands of people whose livelihoods have been destroyed by the Bank’s projects and to whom the Bank is a remote, non-transparent, unaccountable organisation.

One of the problems with One World Trust’s report is that it is a desk study. The researchers did not get in contact with anyone directly affected by the ADB’s projects. But that isn’t the only problem. The report looks at 30 organisations: ten intergovernmental organisations, ten NGOs and ten corporations. Google is the least transparent organisation of the the 30 studied, with an overall score of 17 per cent. ADB scored 81 per cent. Attempting to compare the ADB to Google is meaningless. While there are serious concerns regarding privacy and Google’s storage of information, as well as concerns about its pandering to notoriously undemocratic regimes such as China, it has not funded projects which evicted villagers, bulldozed forests or dammed rivers.

Another problem is that the One World Trust report only looks at accountability. Among the other companies in the 2007 report are Suez, DynCorp, General Electric Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Petrobras, HSBC Holdings, TATA Group, Coca-Cola and Interpol. DynCorp’s record of aerial spraying of lethal herbicides on coca crops and neighbouring communities in Columbia is ignored, as are reports that the US government cannot account for the billion dollars that it gave to DynCorp to provide training services in Iraq. One World Trust makes no mention of the accusations against a Coca-Cola bottling plant (47 per cent owned by Coca-Cola) in Colombia of hiring paramilitaries to kill, kidnap,torture and disappear trade unionists working for the bottling plant. Or the water depletion and drought linked to a Coca-Cola factory in India. There is no mention Suez’s role in privatising water supply in El Alto, Bolivia, which failed after massive protests by local people. Instead, the report describes Suez as a “TNC designing solutions for the management and provision of energy, water, sanitation and waste utilities”. Coca-Cola is a “TNC engaged in the manufacture and sale of beverages,” and DynCorp is a “TNC providing training, logistical and operational support to military and civilian government institutions.”

Similarly, One World Trust’s report makes no mention of problems with any ADB projects. To One World Trust, ADB is simply a “Multilateral development bank promoting economic and social progress in Asia.” Had One World Trust’s researchers looked at some of the Bank’s actual projects they may have come up with a more accurate description. Case studies documenting the 42,000 people with severe respiratory problems living near the ADB-funded Mae Moh lignite-fired power plant in Thailand, or the tens of thousands of people who have protested against the proposed Phulbari coal mine in Bangladesh would have revealed another side of the ADB. A case study of the Theun Hinboun dam in Laos would have revealed the failure of the ADB to address the destruction of local communities’ fisheries and riverbank vegetable gardens. Case studies of other projects, such as the the Samut Prakarn Wastewater Management Project in Thailand, would have revealed problems of corruption and lack of transparency associated with Bank projects.

This is the fourth report in One World Trust’s “Global Accountability Project”. Reports from previous years have promising sounding titles: “Power without Accountability?”, “Pathways to Accountability”, and “Holding Power to Account”. One World Trust uses a Global Accountability Framework to compare the accountability policies of the various organisations. Drawn up over a five years period involving extensive consultation with stakeholders, the Framework includes four dimensions: transparency, participation, evaluation and complaint and response mechanisms. “Within each dimension, an organisation’s capabilities are measured by assessing the existence of key accountability values and principles in policy commitments and supporting management systems,” explains One World Trust in its report.

It sounds great, doesn’t it? Well, sort of. “How do we hold these organisations to account for their actions?” asks One World Trust. Certainly not by ignoring the organisations’ track records.

One World Trust defines accountability as “the process through which an organisation makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision making processes and activities, and delivers against that commitment.” An organisation may have a series of beautiful sounding accountability policies and procedures in place. It may have an “NGO Centre” and a “Public Information and Disclosure Unit”. But One World Trust does not look at whether the organisation is accountable in practice. It does not look at the experience of NGOs or local people in trying to access information, or whether the organisation can be held to account when the organisation tramples on the rights of local communities or workers, or when its activities result in major environmental damage. One World Trust cannot say whether any organisation “delivers against” its “commitment”.

One World Trust assumes that accountability policies on paper “reflect an already existing organisation-wide commitment to the issue, or [are] an indication that the headquarters / international secretariat recognises that these stated values and principles should be applied throughout the organisation as a matter of good practice.” One World Trust fails to look at the incentives for staff within the organisation to apply accountability policies. ADB staff are rewarded for completing large projects and getting large sums of money out of the Bank. They are not rewarded for upholding local communities’ rights to stop unwanted projects on their forests and farmlands. Without incentives for staff to apply policies, they are meaningless. Instead, One World Trust assumes that if the policies are in place, Bank staff will apply them: “Equipped with relevant accountability policies and systems, an organisation has the internal capabilities to implement these principles and values across the wider organisation, network, federation, or group to ensure it is accountable to affected communities and the public at large.”

When looking at the ADB and other intergovernmental organisations, One World Trust does not include “affected communities” in its list of “external stakeholders”. “External stakeholder engagement” refers to how the ADB “cooperates” with NGOs. There is no mention of how the Bank attempts to relate to the people on the receiving end of its projects - local communities, who often do not speak English (the predominant language for Bank reports) and often do not have access to the internet.

“We distrust One World Trust’s findings,” responded the NGO Forum on ADB in a public statement. NGO Forum pointed to the thousands of people evicted to make way for ADB projects and the mismanagement of Bank operations which “has brought suffering to displaced communities and Indigenous Peoples groups as well as degradation to the environment.”

NGO Forum pointed out that the Bank’s Accountability Mechanism has rejected more than 10 complaints at the eligibility stage, most of which on purely technical grounds. The Compliance Review Panel has produced only one report since it was established in 2003. Two other complaints, the Southern Transport Development Project in Sri Lanka and the Chashma Right Bank Project in Pakistan remain unresolved after four years. Communities were evicted without compensation to make way for the Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project. Design failures have exacerbated floods, villagers have lost drinking water, crops, farmland and access to health facilities. The Chashma communities eventually withdrew their claim to the Bank’s Accountability Mechanism. “It was sheer absence of transparency and manipulation of [the] accountability claim which caused the Chashma claimants to withdraw from their inspection request,” notes Mushtaq Gadi of the Pakistani NGO MAUJ.

One World Trust appears not to understand that giving credit to the ADB simply for having policies on paper effectively undermines local struggles. In response to a letter from Hemantha Withanage of the NGO Forum on the ADB, Robert Lloyd, one of the authors of One World Trust’s report, repeats what he wrote in the report: “[T]here will inevitably be a discrepancy between commitments made in a policy and what happens on the ground.” However, Lloyd writes, “we are confident that we published an objective assessment of the existence and quality of ADB’s accountability policies and systems.”

The history of the ADB’s proposed new forest policy suggests that in fact One World Trust published little more than ADB propaganda. In June 2000, the ADB started work on a new forest policy to replace its 1995 policy. The Bank produced a working paper and held a series of consultations on the working paper. Bank staff then drafted a revised working paper, which was not made available to the public. In June 2003, the Bank posted a new draft version of its forest policy on its website. This draft was rejected by the bank’s board in July 2003. Since then, the proposed forest policy has disappeared into the black box of the ADB’s headquarters in Manila. The Bank posted notes on its website promising a new draft in January 2004, then in July 2004, but no new draft appeared. Bank staff made a series of promises of new drafts, none of which made the light of day. Despite repeated requests for information, the Bank has provided no satisfactory explanation of what discussions have taken place within the Bank over the past four years or even whether the Bank will actually produce a new forest policy.

In February 2007, a new note appeared on the ADB’s website, this time promising that a “synthesis report” would be available in November 2007. Two months later the “synthesis report” is still not available.

The ADB needs a forest policy. It needs a forest policy that provides a safeguard to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities living in and near forests. It needs a forest policy that prevents ADB-financed roads, dams and mines from destroying forests and livelihoods. It needs a forest policy that prevents the destruction of forests and commons to make way for industrial tree plantations. It needs a forest policy that prevents the Bank from trading Asia’s forests for carbon emissions in the North. It also needs an open discussion about its forest policy.

On 21 December 2007, I wrote to Javed H. Mir, the ADB’s Senior Natural Resources Specialist (Forestry), to ask for a copy of the “synthesis report”. I asked for an explanation of the process that the Bank intends to follow from now on to develop a new forest policy. I asked why the most recent draft forest policy available on the Bank’s website is dated June 2003. I asked for information about the discussions which had taken place within the Bank about the proposed forest policy. I asked what the Bank’s latest thinking is regarding its proposed new forest policy, and whether the Bank intends to abandon its forest policy and attempt to incorporate forest issues into its ongoing Safeguard Policy Update.

I copied the email to the ADB’s InfoUnit. “Mr. Mir informed us that the draft synthesis report is being revised and is expected to be ready by April 2008,” replied Robert Paul S. Mamonong, the ADB’s Senior Public Information and Disclosure Coordination Assistant. Mamonong did not attempt to explain why the Bank had failed to produce a new forest policy, why the synthesis report was not released in November 2007, or what the process would be when the draft synthesis report is released in April 2008.

Regarding the Bank’s latest thinking on its forest policy, Mamonong referred me to a Technical Assistance Completion Report for the Bank’s “Regional Study on Forest Policy and Institutional Reforms”. The Technical Assistance was completed two years ago. The Completion Report, which was written by Javed H. Mir, confirms that, at some point the Bank produced a “draft ADB Forest Policy R-paper”. This R-paper (the “R” stands for “restricted”) is not available to the public. “However, new draft ADB forest policy was not adopted,” notes Mir in the Completion Report. Mir’s only attempt to explain why the Bank’s board rejected the R-paper, is the statement: “Different perceptions on the role of forestry in poverty reduction, and ADB’s comparative and competitive advantage in the sector, caused difficulty and delay in finalizing the TA outputs including the draft R-Paper.”

Nevertheless, the Completion Report rates the Technical Assistance as “partly successful”, and claims to have “provided the necessary information and framework for policy dialogues with the ADB’s internal and external stakeholders.” The Technical Assistance “promoted participatory institutional review and policy development” in the countries in Asia receiving Bank loans. “A website was developed and maintained,” writes Mir in the Completion Report, “to inform the public on the implementation process, and seek their feedback.” True, there is some information on the ADB’s website and the Bank did invite comments (but the comments are not available on the ADB’s website). The only version of the draft forest policy on the ADB’s website is more than four years old and it has already been rejected by the Bank’s board.

Javed H. Mir did not reply to my questions about the Bank’s internal discussions on its proposed new forest policy. So much for transparency. So much for accountability.

Further Resources: 

One World Trust 2007 Global Accountability Report 

One World Trust 2007 Global Accountability Report: Profile of Asian Development Bank

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

 

Photo: Munem Wasif/DrikNews 

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 (Germany)

Tim Jones, Tel: +447817628196 (WDM, London, UK)

Shefali Sharma, Tel: +91 9871168212 (Bank Information Center, South Asia Office, Delhi, India)

Jennifer Kalafut, Tel: +12024154047 (International Accountability Project, U.S.)

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. 

Further information: 

Read a news report: Asian bank scuppers UK mine project in Bangladesh (Observer, UK)

Read a critique of the Phulbari Coal Project: Phulbari coal mine - losses beyond compensation (By Chris Lang)

 

Phulbari coal mine - “losses beyond compensation”

By Chris Lang.  March 2008.

 

 

A UK company is planning to build a huge coal mine in Bangladesh. The impacts would be devastating. The Asian Development Bank is considering supporting the project anyway.

The proposed Phulbari open pit coal mine in Bangladesh would divert a river, suck an aquifer dry for 30 years and evict thousands of people from their homes. Vast machines would dig a series of holes 300 metres deep over a total area of 59 square kilometres. The coal would be largely exported via a railway and port in the Sundarbans, the world’s largest mangrove forest.[1]

The company behind the US$1.4 billion scheme,[2] Asia Energy Corporation (Bangladesh), is a wholly owned subsidiary of a UK company, Global Coal Management Resources. The largest shareholder in GCM Resources is RAB Capital, a London-based hedge fund manager. Other shareholders include UBS, Credit Suisse and Barclays.[3] In June 2008, the ADB’s board is scheduled to decide whether or not to provide a US$100 million loan and US$200 million political risk guarantee for the project.[4]

During an ADB mission to Bangladesh in October 2007, mission leader Kunio Senga told journalists that “coal mining is going to give huge potential benefit for power generation.” Senga added, “Coal mining is very effective.”[5]

The mine would displace 40,000 people according to Asia Energy. Activists state that the number of people affected could be more than ten times this figure.[6] “No matter wherever we are put, if we get evicted from our homes, we will lose our traditions, social organisation and businesses. These losses are beyond compensation,” Nima Banik, a lecturer at Phulbari Women’s Degree College told the Bangladesh NGO, Society for Environment and Human Development (SEHD).[7]

The mine would cause noise and dust pollution through dynamite explosion. More noise and dust will come from the trucks and trains that would haul the coal away from the mine. Coal dust will pollute the air. Water will be polluted from washing the coal, risking pollution of surrounding water bodies. Bangladesh has networks of hundreds of small rivers, meaning that water pollution in one area can spread over a large area.[8]

To prevent the mine from flooding, huge pumps would run 24 hours a day for the 30 years of the mining project, pumping up to 800 million litres of water a day out of the mine.[9] Groundwater in an area covering about 500 square kilometres would be lowered. Wells would no longer provide enough water for farmers. Asia Energy’s solution is to distribute the water pumped out to farmers. “It is an open question if the water distribution would be even-handed,” notes SEHD’s Philip Gain. Once the mining is finished, Asia Energy plans to create a huge lake, providing fresh water, fisheries and recreation, according to the company. But after 30 years of digging, the water will be toxic.[10]

Local opposition against the project is strong. In August 2006, about 80,000 people took part in protests against the mine. The paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles opened fire on the demonstration, killing five people and injuring hundreds. On 30 August 2006, the Rajshahi mayor, Mizanur Rahman, signed an agreement with the protesters on behalf of the government to kick Asia Energy out of the country and to ban open-pit mining in Bangladesh.[11] Well over a year later, the government has yet to scrap the deal with Asia Energy. Meanwhile the government is working on a coal policy which in its current draft form would allow open pit mining.[12]

Under the military government which declared emergency rule in January 2007, public protest is banned. Nevertheless, in December 2007, representatives of the sub-districts of Phulbari and neighbouring Birampur, Nababganj and Parbatipur wrote to the president and executive directors of the ADB. The project will “increase the poverty of the local population as well as cause environmental disaster,” they wrote.[13]

The Bangladesh government’s Department of the Environment has set up a Climate Change Cell. “Rapid global warming has caused fundamental changes to our climate. No country and people know this better than Bangladesh, where millions of people are already suffering,” states one of the Climate Change Cell’s documents. “Development must ensure reducing the risks posed by climate change to people’s lives and livelihoods,” it adds.[14]

The Climate Change Cell gets more than 90 per cent of its funding from the UK’s Department for International Development (DfID).[15] Nowhere in any of the documents on its website does Climate Change Cell mention Phulbari.[16] Yet the coal from the Phulbari coal mine, if it is extracted and burnt, will add a total of more than 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.[17]

Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, claims to be concerned about climate change. At a recent meeting with Bangladesh’s interim head of government, Fakhruddin Ahmed, Brown promised that “Britain would continue to work closely with Bangladesh bilaterally and internationally to secure an effective response to combat climate change.”[18] The Phulbari coal mine makes a mockery of this statement.References[1] Philip Gain “Open Pit Mining for Coal: Horror Feeling Shrouds Northern Bangladesh” and “Killings in Phulbari Ignite Unstoppable Protest: Local Communities Stand Strong against Open Cut Mining“, Society for Environment and Human Development, no date.[2] “Bangladesh may re-open 1.4-billion-dollar mine deal talks“, AFP, 3 October 2007.[3] “Annual Report and Accounts 2007“, Global Coal Management Resources.[4] “BAN: PHULBARI COAL PROJECT : Bangladesh“, Asian Development Bank website.[5] “Asia Energy wants to renegotiate deal“, The Daily Star, 4 October 2007.[6] “Urgent Appeal by World Organization against Torture: Risk of Violent Suppression of Public Opposition to the Phulbari Coal Mine Project“, Phulbari Resistance, 22 December 2007.[7] Philip Gain, “Killings in Phulbari Ignite Unstoppable Protest: Local Communities Stand Strong against Open Cut Mining“, Society for Environment and Human Development, no date.[8] Anu Muhammad and SM Shaheedullah (2007) “Phulbari Day and the Coal Policy“,NewAge, 26 August 2007.[9] Engr. A K M Shamsuddin (2007) “Phulbari Coal: Hydrogeological environment not favourable for open pit mining“, The Daily Star, 29 September 2007.[10] Philip Gain, “Killings in Phulbari Ignite Unstoppable Protest: Local Communities Stand Strong against Open Cut Mining“, Society for Environment and Human Development, no date.[11] “No step yet to cancel deal with Asia Energy“, NewAge, 26 August 2007.[12] “ Bangladesh: Resistance against coal open-pit mine in Phulbari“, WRM Bulletin no 126, January 2008.[13] “Urgent Appeal by World Organization against Torture: Risk of Violent Suppression of Public Opposition to the Phulbari Coal Mine Project“, Phulbari Resistance, 22 December 2007.[14] “From Vulnerability to Resilience: Bangladesh Preparing for Climate Resilient Development“, Climate Chang Cell, February 2008.[15] “Climate Change Cell . . factsheet“. The Climate Change Cell has a total budget of US$2.1 million of which US$1.9 million will come from DfID.[16] I did a search on Google on 24 March 2008. The result: “Your search - Phulbari site:www.climatechangecell-bd.org - did not match any documents.”[17] The coal mine at Phulbari would remove 15 million tonnes of coal a year for 30 years; a total of 450 million tonnes. One tonne of coal contains 746 kg carbon. The molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 3.667 times that of carbon: 450,000,000 x 0.746 x 3.667 = 1,231,011,900. (This calculation method came from George Monbiot’s article, “Rigged“, The Guardian, 11 December 2007, footnote 5.)[18] “Bangladesh, UK to begin ‘new strategic partnership’“, The Daily Star, 19 March 2008.

Energy division likely to review draft coal policy

NewAge, January 24, 2008. Dhaka, Bangladesh

The energy and mineral resources division is likely to review the draft coal policy submitted by the advisory committee the government formed to finalise the draft before sending it to the council of advisers for approval. ’The draft at this moment is not in the form of a policy; it is now rather in the shape of a manual. We will need to give it a form of policy. We will do it after a consensus is reached by all concerned on issues such as how the mining method will be fixed,’ special assistant to the chief adviser M Tamim told reporters on Wednesday.The chief adviser’s special assistant on the power and energy ministry said the division would take about 15 days to thoroughly scrutinise the contents of the draft.’We will then look into whether there are any contradicting and confusing matters in the draft. If we do not find any, we will be happy. If necessary we will again discuss with the advisory committee members the recommendations they put forward for a consensus,’ said Tamim.He said the broader objective of the policy would be optimum, and not maximum, production of coal. ‘For optimum production of coal, environmental and social issues will also be strongly considered.’The advisory committee, headed by the former BUET vice-chancellor, Abdul Matin Patwari, recently submitted the draft coal policy to the energy division after bringing about some changes in the earlier version of the draft.The committee recommended discouraging coal export, operating one open-pit mine to examine the viability of the method, awarding exploration and mining licences to state-run entities that could form joint ventures with foreign or private companies and establishing a separate entity, Coal Bangla, for the development of the coal sector.When asked whether any move to change the latest draft would create further controversy, Tamim said, ‘Whatever we do, we will do it on a consensus and based on reasons. We will need to create the premise where there should be no differences of opinion on the finalisation of the draft.’Tamim said everyone would agree that coal extraction is a must for electricity generation. ‘Then the question of how, when and how much coal could be extracted will come up. The demand for coal will dictate the issues.’He said the mining method would be mine-specific and the mining engineers or geologists would fix the mining method. ‘One should not dictate technology out of political ambition.’Tamim said every mining method has its adverse affects. ‘We will need to mitigate or minimise the affects to a tolerable level whatever the method we follow.’It is an engineering decision. The main thing is that whatever we do we will need to safeguard the interest of the country.’