New Power Politics in Asia: Focus Releases Briefing Note on the Shanghai Cooperation Organzation

Focus on the Global South has released a briefing note on the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a regional mechanism, which was created in 2001 and consists of the following:

People’s Republic of China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. It was inspired by the need to solve the border disputes lingering between the Soviet Union’s successor states and China in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Originally a Chinese initiative, taken after resolving their border problems with Central Asia and Russia, it was also profitable for the Central Asian States, which were lacking in consistency, stability and resources in the midnineties and struggling to establish multilateral and bilateral relations beyond the region. It was also designed as a platform to balance the role of the United States in the Central Asian region.

Main findings of this paper :

• The SCO has been able to meet with its initial objective to establish geopolitical multipolarity in Central Asia and check the US advance into the region.
• It is a reflection of the emerging multi-polar world.
• Its increasingly acquiring strength is suggestive of becoming a major political force of the Eurasian region.
• The SCO will play a vital role in ensuring international security.

Click to download the paper. 

CALL FOR PEOPLES SAARC 2008!

South Asian heads of government will meet in Colombo, Sri Lanka for the annual South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit between 27 July and 3 August 2008.

Regrettably, this SAARC summit will be no different to its predecessors in having little relevance to the needs and daily struggles of the peoples of South Asia. Its agenda will be shaped by the policy choices of post-colonial elites, while it has spectacularly failed to achieve regional unity or even facilitate grassroots initiatives in that direction.

Therefore, since 1993, social movements and peoples’ organisations have also converged in parallel to the SAARC summit to raise our agenda for our region, to demonstrate our will for friendship, solidarity and visa-free movement of people across imposed boundaries, and to manifest our desire for a peoples union of South Asia.
 
On 18, 19 and 20 July 2008, hundreds of women, workers, peasants, artisans, urban and rural poor, students and youth, cultural activists, scholar activists, and representatives of marginalised and excluded social groups and communities from around South Asia will gather at Peoples SAARC 2008 in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

The main theme of Peoples SAARC 2008 is “Towards A South Asian Union” while the sub-themes include women’s rights; demilitarisation, denuclearisation and democracy; right to food, livelihood, health, education and social security in the context of alternatives to neo-liberalism; environmental justice and natural resource rights; and South Asian solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles worldwide. A mass rally for peace and justice in South Asia will form part of the closing ceremony.

We call upon all those who affirm the vision of a peoples union of South Asia to join country-level preparations, mobilise for, and participate in Peoples SAARC 2008 in Colombo on 18, 19 and 20 July 2008.
 
For further information contact: Secretariat, Peoples SAARC 2008, 19/1/1, Siri Dhamma Mawatha, Colombo 10, Sri Lanka or Email: peoplesaarcsl@gmail.com or Tel: +94 11 267 2586.

Acute water crisis in Dhaka city

People stand in a queue to collect WASA water at Moghbazar in Dhaka on Monday as water crisis turns acute in different areas of the capital. — New Age photo. 

Children bring out a silent procession with pitchers in south Madartek in the capital yesterday demanding smooth water supply. The area is experiencing acute water crisis despite installation of a new pump there. Photo: The Daily Star.

Residents of Pikepara of Mirpur in the capital queue up with their vessels yesterday and wait for a Dhaka Wasa water tanker as the area has been experiencing acute water crisis for more than a month. Photo: Anisur Rahman, The Daily Star. 

FTA Talks With Delhi: Dhaka to assess India’s export subsidy

Star Business Report, The Daily Star, April 21, 2008

The government is going to study Indian export subsidy as part of groundwork before it starts bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) talks with Delhi. 

The commerce ministry yesterday sent a letter to the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi to make the assessment as soon as possible, ministry sources said.

Asked, a high official of the ministry confirmed the government will start negotiations with India after getting the export subsidy assessment results.

“Bangladesh needs to fix its strategy against Indian subsidised exports otherwise Bangladesh will lose its market,” Feroz Ahmed, commerce secretary, said.

He said the country will focus on the products that have been included in the Safta negative list.

Golam Moazzem, senior research fellow of Centre for Policy Dialogue, said the country should focus on ‘Safta Plus’.

As the country has gained a little from many multilateral and regional deals the government should improve its two ways trade with major trading partners, he said.

The government earlier eyed bilateral free trade agreements with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Myanmar and China. 

Many countries across the world are going for bilateral free trade agreements although they have many regional and multilateral trading agreements in place, Shishir Dev, a trade expert, said.

“The implementation process of bilateral free trade agreement is very simple and results of such agreement are very effective for which Bangladesh needs to consider signing FTA,” he added.

Bangladeshi import from India was recorded at US$21.10 billion in 2006-07 fiscal. 

Bangladesh exported only $ 350 million goods to India in the same period.

An government expert on international trade negotiation said FTA has some risks for smaller countries as how long the special and differential treatments (S&D) remains under the FTA the smaller countries can gain but when it ends the big countries continue gaining alone.

Preferring anonymity, he said FTAs have some benefits like it provides for duty free entry for all goods except those included in a short negotiated negative list.

IMF team visit Bangladesh to discuss budget, privatization of state-owned bank

The Daily Star, April 20, 2008 An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission will arrive in Dhaka tomorrow to discuss with top government officials the next fiscal year’s national budget and banking reforms including fresh initiative for privatisation of the Rupali Bank.   The IMF mission’s visit is followed by the IMF’s approval of an emergency assistance of $218 million to Bangladesh earlier this month. Sources said the three-member IMF team, led by Adviser to the Asia Pacific Department of the IMF Thomas Rumbaugh, will hold meetings with the high-ups of the finance ministry, Bangladesh Bank and National Board of Revenue (NBR) during their stay till April 28. “The IMF mission will discuss important issues regarding the next fiscal year’s budget as well as government subsidies in energy sector, including petroleum products,” said an official of the finance ministry.  The team will have talks on the next phase of action by the government about three state-owned commercial banks — Sonali, Agrani and Janata — the official said, adding that the performance of the banks in 2007 after being corporatised is also on the agenda. Sources said the mission will also prioritise the next course of action for privatisation of the Rupali Bank. After two years of negotiation, the government cancelled the process of selling the bank to Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud in March due to unresponsiveness of the bidder. The IMF on April 2 approved the $218 million loan to Bangladesh to support its international reserve position, which has been under pressure in the face of sharp rise in disaster-related imports, including a large volume of food items. Later, Finance Adviser Mirza Azizul Islam told journalists that the IMF approved the loan without imposing any condition.  However, the acting Chair of the IMF Executive Board Takatoshi Kato in a press release on April 2 said, “The government [of Bangladesh] has indicated its intention to maintain macroeconomic stability and pursue important reforms in the areas of revenue administration and policy, expenditure management, energy pricing and state-bank reform.”

Global Hot Spots of Hunger Set to Explode

By Thalif Deen, Published on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 by Inter Press Service

UNITED NATIONS - As food prices continue to escalate worldwide, some of the poorest nations in the developing world are in danger of social and political upheavals.

The unrest, which is likely to spread to nearly 40 countries, has been triggered largely by a sharp increase in the prices of staple commodities, including wheat, rice, sorghum, maize and soybeans, according to the United Nations.

Following last week’s food riots in Haiti, which claimed the lives of four people, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to international donors for urgent assistance to one of the poorest countries in the Caribbean.

Watch reports on global food prices crisis from The Real News

Food shortages threaten 100 million

 

Global food prices crisis

A meeting of the world’s finance ministers in Washington over the weekend warned that rising food prices were more of a threat to political and social stability than the current crisis in global capital markets.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has singled out six countries with an “exceptional shortfall in aggregate food production and supplies”: Lesotho, Somalia, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Moldova.

An additional six countries with “widespread lack of access” to food include Eritrea, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and North Korea.

The steep rise in basic foodstuffs has already sparked demonstrations and/or riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso, while an increase in both fuel and food prices has triggered unrest in Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal.

The FAO has also warned of impending political and social unrest, specifically in countries where 50 to 60 percent of a family’s income is spent on food.

“If the basic food requirements of vast numbers of the poor remain beyond them, with a broad range of consequences to their well-being, they will probably have no alternative than to make themselves ‘heard’ by taking to the streets,” says Ernest Corea, until recently a senior consultant with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) at the World Bank.

This has happened in history, and food riots of varying intensity have already taken place in several countries, he told IPS.

It was the U.S. civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. who said that “violence is the voice of the unheard”, said Corea, co-author of “Revolutionising the Evolution of the CGIAR”.

Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the San Francisco-based Oakland Institute, which has done exhaustive studies on issues relating to food trade and agriculture, told IPS that various causes for the current crisis are being cited in policy circles, including increased demand from China, India and other emerging economies.

The high per capita income growth of some of these countries has resulted in changing appetites.

Additionally, she noted, the price increases are also attributed to rising fuel and fertiliser costs, climate change, and the new emphasis on converting crops to biofuels, which are being held responsible for almost half the increase in the consumption of major food crops in 2006-07.

“What is not being mentioned is that in the last few decades liberalisation of agriculture, dismantling of state-run institutions like marketing boards, and specialisation of developing countries in exportable cash crops such as coffee, cocoa, cotton, and even flowers has been encouraged by international financial institutions backed by rich countries like the United States, and also by the European Union,” she pointed out.

Mittal said these reforms have driven the poorest countries into a downward spiral. “Removal of tariff barriers has allowed a handful of Northern countries to capture Third World markets by dumping heavily subsidised commodities while undermining local food production,” she said.

This has resulted in developing countries turning from net exporters to large importers of food, with a food trade surplus of about 1.0 billion dollars in the 1970s transforming into an 11-billion-dollar deficit in 2001.

She also said the situation has been worsened by the dismantling of marketing boards that kept commodities in a rolling stock to be released in event of a bad harvest, thus protecting both producers and consumers against sharp rises or drops in prices.

Corea blamed the crisis on inadequate investment in agriculture and the sharp decline in official development assistance (ODA) for agricultural development over several years.

Additionally, he said, there were also natural disasters and human-made impediments to agricultural development, which is the basis of food security. He pointed out that 21 of the 37 countries listed by FAO as “food crisis” countries requiring assistance have suffered from floods, droughts, and other adverse weather conditions.

And 20 of them are the scene of continuing, current or recent internal conflicts, civil strife, and large scale internal displacement of people.

Moreover, he said, there has been an increased demand for food as a result of both increased population and increased income.

Additionally, as incomes increase, the pattern of food consumption usually changes. For example, higher income earners tend to consume more meats than the poor. One consequence of this trend, he argued, is that some food stocks are diverted for processing as animal feed.

He also blamed rising food prices on subsidies to U.S. farmers for growing crops for energy, in response to the high price of oil and by-products. In 2008, a third of the country’s maize output will be used in the production of ethanol and not for food production. Rising fuel prices have also increased the price of some agricultural inputs like fertiliser, and transport.

The diversion from food to fuel has already been described by some developing nations as “a crime against humanity”.

Corea said there is also a lack of major agricultural research breakthroughs at the level of Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug’s research triumphs that led to massive increases of cereal production in Asia and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s.

Also, there has been inadequate attention to the so-called “orphan” crops — such as millets, indigenous vegetables, local roots and tubers — which are not commercially as important as rice, wheat and maize/corn but are essential items in the diet of the poor in 26 of the 37 “food crisis” countries.

Asked if she expects the crisis to escalate, Mittal told IPS: “The situation will get worse if the diagnosis of the problem continues to ignore the underlying causes of this crisis and fails to ask what made developing countries vulnerable in the first place.’

Asked how best the food crisis can be resolved, Mittal identified several measures, both nationally and internationally.

Firstly, it is essential to have safety nets and public distribution systems put in place to prevent widespread hunger.

The poorest countries lacking resources should call for and be provided emergency aid to set up such systems.

And donor countries should commit and provide more aid immediately to support government efforts in poor countries and respond to appeals from the U.N. agencies, she added.

Additionally, development policies should promote consumption and production of local crops raised by small, sustainable farms rather than encouraging poor nations to specialise in cash crops for western markets.

National policies involving the management of stocks and pricing, which limit the volatility of food prices, are vital for protection against such food crisis.

Lastly, she said, there is a need to adopt the principle of food sovereignty by developing countries to protect their poorest farmers and consumers.

New Book: China’s New Role in Africa and the South: A search for a new perspective

Edited by Dorothy-Grace Guerrero and Firoze Manji

China’s global expansion is much talked about, but usually from the viewpoint of the West. This unique collection of essays, written by scholars and activists from China and the global South, provides diverse views on the challenges faced by Africa, Latin America and Asia as a result of China’s rise as a significant global economic power. Chinese aid, trade and investments - driven by the needs of its own economy - present both threats and opportunities for the South, requiring a nuanced analysis that goes beyond simplistic caricatures of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

Arising from a conference held in Shanghai in May 2007, when the African Development Bank was also meeting in that city, this book provides a fresh perspective that focuses on the economic, social and environmental impact of China’s expansion. It represents the first attempt to establish a dialogue between civil society in China and the global south.

The contributors include Dorothy-Grace Guerrero, Walden Bello, Luk Tak Chuen, Shalmali Guttal, Yu Xiaogang, Ding Pin, Xu Weizhong, Dot Keet, Barry Sautman, Yan Hairong, Lucy Corkin, Ali Askouri, Yuza Maw Htoon, Khin Zaw Win, Alexandre de Freitas Barbosa, Fu Tao and Peter Bosshard.

ISBN: 978-1-906387-26-6
258pp 2008 Fahamu and Focus on the Global South
£16.95 / US$33.95

More Info and purchase click here >> 

 

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)

 

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.’

International Civil Society Letter to Asian Development Bank (ADB): Discontinue Support to Phulbari Coal Project!

January 11, 2008

 

The ADB Board of Directors

Asian Development Bank

P.O. Box 7890980

Manila, Philippines

 

RE: PHULBARI COAL PROJECT (BAN 39933-01)

Dear Director:

 

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing with regard to ADB’s proposed Phulbari Coal Project (BAN 39933-01), which is scheduled for approval by the ADB Board on 27 March 2008.  We believe the Phulbari Coal Project is in violation of the ADB Energy Policy (1995), Indigenous Peoples Policy (1998), Involuntary Resettlement Policy (1995), Environment Policy (2002), and Public Communication Policy (2005).

 

The current political situation in Bangladesh does not allow freedom of speech and assembly in the region.  The project is fiercely opposed by the people of the region in the four sub-districts of Birampur, Nawabganj, Parbatipur, and Phulbari; yet public documents approved by the ADB continue to state that there is community support.  The non-transparent and unaccountable processes at the project planning stage have made us deeply concerned about the capacity of the ADB, its proposed private sector partner Global Coal Management/Asia Energy PLC, and local authorities to adequately and justly prepare for and deliver on social and environmental aspects of this project.

 

We therefore urge you to discontinue ADB’s pre-appraisal due diligence on this Project and take it out of the funding pipeline due to the following issues:

 

1)    Violation of ADB Energy Policy (1995)

The Summary Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) of the Phulbari project (dated August 2006 and posted on ADB website on August 16, 2006) mentions that “At full production, about 8 million tonnes will be exported by rail and barges to an offshore reloading facility at Akram Point for export to international markets, some 4 million tonnes will be exported to India via railway, and the remaining 3 million tonnes will be used for a proposed mine-site 500 MW power plant and sold for domestic use”(SEIA , page 2).

 

Paragraph 86 (ix) of ADB Energy Policy states (excerpts highlighted) that “Coal is the primary energy source in the Bank’s largest DMCs and its use is a major cause of environmental degradation. The Bank should actively promote environmentally sound mining practices and clean coal technologies. As coal is an increasingly internationally traded commodity, the Bank should not directly finance coal mine development except where it is for captive use by a thermal power plant, and economically superior to other coal supply options.”

 

We submit that the premise of the ADB Energy Policy is to only approve financing of mine-mouth projects.  Phulbari is clearly not a “captive use” mine-mouth project as the majority (almost 80%) of the coal is intended for export to India and international markets. Since the ADB Energy Policy has to apply in its entirety to the full Project –- and not merely to sub-projects in a piece meal fashion — it is our view that Phulbari Coal Project stands in violation of the ADB Energy Policy.   We are thus surprised that ADB Management cleared the concept paper for this project in October 2005 and continues to conduct “due diligence” on this project when it so clearly violates an existing Board approved policy.

 

2) Massive Displacement, Loss of Livelihoods and Basic Services

According to ADB management, Phulbari Coal Project would create approximately 50,000 affected people (12,000 affected households, including 2,200 indigenous peoples) in the project area, out of which 43,000 people will be physically displaced.[1]  According to the December 2006 version of the Resettlement Plan for the Coal Mine Area of the Phulbari Coal Project prepared by Asia Energy PLC, compensation would be provided to legal owners of land and houses, and other socially recognized agricultural land users and sharecroppers would receive livelihood restoration grants for a period of two years.

 

However, the Expert Committee formed by the Government of Bangladesh to evaluate Asia Energy’s project documents found that 129,417 persons will be directly affected by the project and 220,000 persons will be indirectly affected due to the de-watering of the mine area and because the primary source of water in this area is tubewells.[2]

 

In addition to displacement, severe loss of livelihoods will result as the land proposed for the project is one of the most fertile and populated areas in a country that is prone to chronic water-logging and where much of the land is uncultivable for many months of the year.  The recent cyclone clearly demonstrates the true value of such land for food security and habitation for the entire country.  Out of the total land proposed for the Phulbari open-pit mine, 78% is agricultural land and there is limited possibility for land rehabilitation. The majority of affected people will not be employed by the mine and projections of multiplier effects of such an operation are based on spurious grounds.  Thus the impoverishment of thousands is a likely scenario.  Given the sheer magnitude of affected people, wide spread opposition and social unrest is likely to remain an ongoing reality of this project.

 

3) Environmental Degradation

The Project will have severe environmental consequences.  First, no practical ground level tests appear to have been conducted on the actual impact of dewatering in the mining area and thus long term impacts of such a procedure on desertification in the area remain highly uncertain.  The Expert Committee Report indicates that arsenic contamination of water could be a real possibility during and after the mine life of 30-35 years given the depth of the coal extraction (656-1028 ft).  Asia Energy PLC documents suggest that land will be filled after extraction and the company will leave a freshwater lake at the end of the mine life.  However, environmental experts maintain that neither the land (dredged and rehabilitated) nor the ensuing “lake” will be conducive to agriculture or other  activities such as fisheries given the toxicity level of both.  The depletion of groundwater will impact approximately 314 sq km.  Though Asia Energy claims that it will re-inject water in the area, its discussion on this issue is based on speculative hydrological and climactic projections.[3] 

 

Second, the main coal off-loading facility will be at Akram Point, a deep water anchorage site situated within the Sundarbans Reserve Forest. The Sundarbans are a World Heritage Site given its biodiversity and marine habitat. Equally disturbing is the admission in the SEIA that shipping channels “…will pass at least 1.5 km from these protected areas” (SEIA, page 7). Moreover, preventive measures suggested in the SEIA deals inadequately with rail and river accidents frequently associated with mining activity of this scale, not to mention response to sudden large scale natural disasters as Bangladesh has recently witnessed. 

 

Finally, though the ADB continues to maintain that the EIA and SIA “have been carried out to a very high international standard by the sponsor”[4]both the EIA and the SIA have been commissioned by the same company which wishes to extract the coal; hence, serious conflict of interest issues remain endemic in the project.  This is especially so given that Asia Energy’s leadership is dubious and it has no pre-existing record of operating a coal mine.[5]

 

4) Human Rights violations

On 26 August 2006, around 20,000 local residents participated in a large peaceful gathering to protest the displacement of the large number of people to give way to the project. Regretfully, the Bangladesh Rifles opened fire on the demonstrators. Three people from the Phulbari area were killed, one paralyzed and over a 100 people were injured in the horrifying incident.  Moreover, in February 2007, Mr. SM Nuruzzaman, one of the local leaders of the Phulbari campaign, was detained and tortured.[6]

 

Based on local reports, intimidation of local community members continues, preventing them from openly gathering in groups and voicing concerns regarding this project.  However, ADB management continues to publicly support the project.  And ADB documents continue to maintain: “The entire process has been underpinned by free, prior, and informed consultations with stakeholders, including local communities, NGOs, various levels of government, inter-ministerial committees, and outside stakeholders. Public consultation has been and remains a continuous process.”[7] This is particularly disturbing given the conflicting reports from community members themselves (see Disclosure section below).

 

5) Indigenous Peoples Policy

The affected indigenous peoples of the Munda, Santal and Mahili ethnic groups have been farmers and agricultural laborers in the region for generations. The draft Indigenous People’s Development Plan (page 47) for the Phulbari project proposes indigenous families into resettlement sites with only 1/8 hectare of land per household or cash compensation for resettlement.  The resettlement sites are in areas already densely populated, with little scope to obtain alternative agricultural land and labor opportunities. It is also unlikely that they will be able to purchase land of equal productive capacity from the non-indigenous population given limited compensation offered and existing land scarcity.  The project violates ADB IP Policy with regard to consultations with these groups and given the unlikelihood of these groups to sustain their way of life under the resettlement options suggested.

 

6) Violation of the Public Communications Policy

Many local elders claim that Asia Energy Corporation has only informed prospective affectee communities of the benefits of the project, and not explained the negative impacts it may cause the environment and the local communities. They also claim that they have never received nor been consulted on any key documents, e.g. environmental impact assessment, draft resettlement plan and draft indigenous peoples development plan, among others. The chairman of the Phulbari Municipality and elected commissioners of Phulbari have demanded that Asia Energy Corporation provide them key project documents, but to no avail.  Asia Energy’s information on its Bangla website reads more like public relations documents.  Moreover, even Global Coal Management’s site no longer contains the English versions of the draft EIA, Involuntary Resettlement Plan and Indigenous People’s Plan as suggested by ADB staff.

 

Asia Energy’s Public Communication and Development Plan (PCDP) cites that 74.1% of those surveyed between February and August 2005 felt that they would support the project if there was proper compensation; however, this survey was conducted while Asia Energy gave limited information about what the project would entail.  The Expert Committee Report states that names of certain officials were listed in consultations where they were actually not present.  The President of the Expert Committee Report, Professor Md. Nurul Islam was one of them.  There are several such examples of misinformation.

 

Committee members found out that Asia Energy surveyors wrote down information and opinions of the local people in pencil while the form was written in English…local population are therefore suspicious about whether their opinion against the coalmine has been accurately reported by the surveyors…during the field visit and consultation with the local people the Committee members felt that the impression given in the [Asia Energy Feasibility Report] is far from accurate.  The majority of the local community with whom the Bangladesh Government’s Expert Committee exchanged views was against the Phulbari coal project” (See Expert Committee Report).

 

Conclusion

Asia Energy’s Public Information Center was shut down after the killings in August 2006; the Bangladesh Government also signed an agreement with community members that the company would not return to the Phulbari area.  We recognize that the current interim government under the state of emergency disregards this agreement; however, the agreement attests to the sheer lack of community support behind this project.

 

The project violates ADB social and environmental policies and its Public Communication Policy.  And given the explicit human rights violations associated and anticipated with this project, we respectfully ask you to take leadership, and ensure that the Asian Development Bank discontinues its involvement in the Phulbari Coal Project. Please note that this letter supports the letter (attached) sent to you by Community members of Phulbari and other Bangladeshi citizens, dated December 15, 2007.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

1. Hemantha Withanage -           NGO Forum on ADB

2. Bruce Jenkins             -           Bank Information Center (USA)

3. Muhammad Riza        -           Yayasan Duta Awan – Solo (Indonesia)

4. Violeta Corral                     -  Public Services International Research Unit – Asia Desk

5. Le Van Lan                 -           Center for Rural Development in Central Vietnam (Vietnam)

6. Souparna Lahiri           -           National Forum of Forest People & Forest Workers (India)

7. Jiten Yumnam                       - Citizens Concern for Dams and Development (NE India)

8. Gururaja Budhya       -             Urban Research Centre (India)

9. Nang Shining              -           Images Asia Environment Desk (Thailand)

10. Jessica Rosien           -           Oxfam Australia

11. Flint Duxfield            -           Aid/Watch (Australia)

12. Joanna Levitt             -           International Accountability Project (USA)

13. Dilena Patharagoda  -           Sri Lankan Working Group on Trade and IFIs (Sri Lanka)

14. Ravindranath Dabre -           Centre for Environmental Justice (Sri Lanka)

15. Suranjan Kodithuwakku-      Sri Lanka Green Movement (Sri Lanka)

16. Dang Ngoc Quang     -           Rural Development Services Centre (Vietnam)

17. Titi Soentoro            -           NADI (Indonesia)

18. Prof. Sanjai Bhatt    -           University of Delhi (India)

19. Prajeena Karmacharya -         Rural Reconstruction Nepal / South Asia Alliance for Poverty

Eradication (Nepal)

20. Sergei Vorsin           -           Eco Centre (Tajikistan)

21. A. Ercelan               -           Creed Alliance (Pakistan)

22. M. Nauman              -           Pakistan Institute of Labour Education & Research (Pakistan)

23. Mahar Safdar Ali      -           Anjuman Asiaye Awam (Pakistan) 

24. Azhar Lashari           -           ActionAid – Pakistan

25. Philip Gain              -           Society for Environment and Human Development (Bangladesh)

26. Fabby Tumiwa         -           Institute for Essential Services Reform (Indonesia)

27. Srinivas Krishnaswamy-          Greenpeace India

28. Ahmed Swapan        -           VOICE (Bangladesh)

29. Svetlana Spatar       -           The Ecological Society Green Salvation (Kazakhstan)

30. Zakir Kibria             -           Bangla Praxis (Bangladesh)

31. Anna Dreyzina         -           Oil Workers Rights Protection Organization Public Union

(Azerbaijan)

32. Shailendra Yashwant -           Greenpeace Southeast Asia

33. Sushovan Dhar           -           Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (India)

34. Prabin Man Singh     -           Collective Initiative for Research and Action (Nepal)

35. Naing Htoo              -           EarthRights International

36. Rustam Murzakhanov -           Researcher of Environmental Law Center “Armon” (Uzbekistan)

37. Isagani Serrano        -           Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (Philippines)

38. Ram Wangkheirakpam-         North East Peoples Alliance on Trade, Finance and Development

(NE India)

39. Nursaule Umbetova  -           Ecological-Lawful Initiative Center ”Globus” (Kazakhstan)

40. Parviz Umarov          -           Center for Development of Civil Society (Tajikistan)

41. Shynar Izteulouva     -           NGO “TAN” (Kazakhstan)

42. Pieter Jansen           -           Both ENDS (The Netherlands)

43. Grainne Ryder         -           Energy Probe Research Foundation (Canada)

44. Bruce Rich               -           Environmental Defense (USA)

45. Ashish Fernandes      -           Greenpeace India

46. Soile Koskinen          -           A SEED Europe (The Netherlands)

47. Isabel de la Torre    -           Earth Economics (USA)

48. Jim Enright              -           Mangrove Action Project (Thailand)

49. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho       -           Institute of Science in Society (UK)

50. Paula Palmer            -           Global Response (USA)

51. Jennifer Scarlott      -           International Conservation Initiatives Sanctuary Asia (USA)

52. Helen Leake             -           Forest Peoples Programme (UK)

53. Dr. Andreas Missbach -           Berne Declaration (Switzerland)

54. Dr. Poonam Pande

55. Yuki Tanabe              -           Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society

56. Knud Vocking             -           Urgewald (Germany)

57. Suzanna Dennis        -           Gender Action (USA)

58. Peter Fugazzotto     -           Oceans and Communities (USA)

59. Sébastien Godinot    -           Les Amis de la Terre (France)

60. Saodat Saidnazarova -           CSSC “Kalam” (Tajikistan)

61. Tom Kucharz            -           Ecologistas en Acción (Spain)

62. Jenina Joy Chavez    -           Focus on the Global South (Philippines)

63. Shalmali Guttal        -           Focus on the Global South (Thailand)

64. Longgena Ginting  -              Friends of the Earth International

Cc:

Board of Directors, ADB

Haruhiko Kuroda, President, ADB

Liqun Jin, Vice President (Operations 1), ADB

Kunio Senga, Director General, South Asia Regional Department, ADB

Robert Bestani, Director General, PSOD, ADB

Hua Du, Country Director, Bangladesh Resident Mission, ADB.

Mats Elerud, Senior Investment Specialist, PSOD, Asian Development Bank

Bart Edes, Head, NGO Center, ADB

---

[1] As per Asia Energy’s Draft Resettlement Plan dated December 2006; SEIA suggests 40,000 people will be physically displaced.

[2] Report of the Expert Committee to Evaluate Feasibility Study Report and Scheme Development of the Phulbari Coal Project, pg 47. The report is in Bangla but a summary translation can be provided to you.

[3] See R. Moody, “Bangla Nagar: August 26, 2006” 28 August 2006

[4] Response from ADB President Kuroda to Civil Society Organizations about the Phulbari Coal Mine; July 23, 2007, mimeo

[5] See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1101.htm

 

[6] http://www.newagebd.com/2007/feb/13/nat.html

[7] See SEIA, para 280