Phulbari Day Today

Staff Correspondent, NewAge, August 26, 2009

Photo: Zakir Kibria

Different socio-political organisations will observe Phulbari Day today in remembrance of the demonstrations against Asia Energy’s planned open-pit mining at Phulbari in Dinajpur on August 26, 2006.

Three people were killed and many were injured when lawmen into protests against at the Phulbari coal field in August 2006.

Four days after the demonstrations, the then BNP-led government on August 30 signed a six-point agreement with protesters, spearheaded by the national committee to protect oil, gas, mineral resources, power and port to expel Asia Energy from Bangladesh and ban open-pit mining.

The committee, however, expressed its dismay at the non-implementation of the agreement as Asia Energy is still active in the country. The national committee and different left-leaning political organisations have chalked up programmes to mark August 26 as Phulbari Day.

The committee will place flowers at Shaheed Smritistambha at Phulbari and hold a rally there. The committee will also place flowers at the Central Shaheed Minar and observe the day in other places.

Jatiya Gana Front will hold a rally and bring out a procession in Muktangon to mark the day. The organisation in a statement said any move for open-pit mining in Bangladesh would be stopped. Samajtantrik Chhatra Front will also bring out a procession on the Dhaka University campus on the occasion demanding expulsion of Asia Energy from Bangladesh.

Further information:

Phulbari Resistance

Phulbari Resistance on Facebook

Press Statement: Third Mission of the International CHT Commission

International Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission
Bangladesh Secretariat: 10/11, Iqbal Road, Mohammadpur, Dhaka 1207
chtcomm@gmail.com

Press statement

The International Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission (CHTC) appreciates that after 12 years since the signing of the CHT Accord some important measures have been taken to implement the Accord. These include specifically the setting up of the National Committee for Implementation of the CHT Accord, re-establishment of the Land Commission and the Task Force for CHT Refugee Rehabilitation Affairs, the cancellation of plantation leases that have not been properly developed, and the withdrawal of temporary military camps. This has generated a sense of momentum which the CHTC appreciates and encourages. The CHTC congratulates the Prime Minister on her statement on the occasion of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Day in support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This statement encourages not only the indigenous peoples in Bangladesh, but also all over the world.

Between 11-16 August members of the CHTC visited all three districts of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Commission members met with government representatives, the three brigade commanders and their zone commanders, senior police officers, politicians and civil society leaders, including both Pahari and Bengali representatives.

During meetings with the brigade commanders and their staff the CHTC members were informed that they saw no security risks with compliance to the government policy on the withdrawal of the camps. This view was confirmed by the police and local authorities.

In meetings with all parties the land issue was presented as the main concern. The CHTC therefore considers it of utmost importance that the Land Commission becomes fully activated and funded, including its function as a tribunal to settle land disputes, which should be disposed of before the cadastal survey is undertaken.

The CHTC is disappointed, however, at the rate of progress towards activation of the Land Commission; the Commission’s lack of progress on the determination of disputed land claims; its apparent decision to hold the cadastral survey beforehand and the absence of proposals for electing the Hill District Councils.

The CHT Commission hopes that the Land Commission will establish a database of all disputed land claims, providing the claimants with forms on which they can supply the information required for this purpose. This might be the subject of an approach to international agencies such as UNDP for financial and technical assistance. Because of the complexity of overlapping titles on the same land plots granted in different circumstances, a definitive set of rules should be developed by the Land Commission to rank the relative priority of different kinds of land titles. For those whose claims to land are disallowed, the government should draft rehabilitation measures for discussion with community leaders.

The CHTC was alerted to the necessity of activating and properly funding the Task Force for CHT Refugee Rehabilitation Affairs. Moreover, there is a need for a speedy development of government guidelines for the interaction and division of labour between the Task Force and the Land Commission.

The CHTC further urges continuing measures to enhance access to justice within the CHT, including the activation of legal aid committees.

It is imperative that elections are held for the CHT Regional Council and Hill District Councils and the CHT Commission recommends that alternative electoral methods are explored promptly.

The CHTC has collected a large amount of information including documents given to us by Bengalis and Paharis which remains to be analysed, and as usual will be producing a report on this visit utilising these data We have a further international visit planned for the coming year.

We are convinced that the vast majority of the people of all communities in the CHT are determined to maintain the peace and harmony of the region, and that they will cooperate with the processes that are essential for the purpose. Peace is an essential human right, and all the efforts of both government and people should be devoted to its achievement.

List of meetings:

Civil society in Bandarban
Tribal Muslim Welfare Association
Hill District Council Chairman, Bandarban
Deputy Commissioner, Bandarban
Brigade Commander, Bandarban
Civil society in Rangamati
CHT Regional Council Chairman
Jana Sanghaty Samity (JSS)
United Peoples Democratic Front (UPDF)
CHT Forest and Land Committee
Hill District Council Chairman, Rangamati
Deputy Commissioner, Rangamati
Brigade Commander, Rangamati
Civil society in Khagrachori
Brigade Commander, Khagrachori
Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina
Finance Minister, Abul Mal Abdul Muhith
Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni
CHT Land Commission Chairman, Khademul Islam Chowdhury
Parliamentary Standing Committee on CHT and Cultural Minister, Promod Mankin
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh
CHT Minister, Dipankar Talukder
Law Commission, Justice Mohammad Abdur Rashid
European Commission
Donor de-briefing meeting

Michael Moore’s ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’

‘CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY‘ – In Theaters October 2nd

“It’s a crime story. But it’s also a war story about class warfare. And a vampire movie, with the upper 1 percent feeding off the rest of us. And, of course, it’s also a love story. Only it’s about an abusive relationship.

“It’s not about an individual, like Roger Smith, or a corporation, or even an issue, like health care. This is the big enchilada. This is about the thing that dominates all our lives — the economy. I made this movie as if it was going to be the last movie I was allowed to make.

“It’s a comedy.” — Michael Moore

Political Power Dictates Transboundary Waters

By Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service, August 20, 2009

STOCKHOLM, (IPS) – A longstanding quote attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the legendary author and humourist Mark Twain has been reverberating in the conference rooms of the Swedish capital: “Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over.”

Since nearly half of the global available surface water is found in 263 international river basins, the countries sharing borders have one of two choices: either collaborate or go to war.

A primary focus at the international water conference, currently underway in Stockholm, is transboundary water management.

The sources of potential collaboration or conflicts include sharing waters in the Baltic Sea, the Jordan River, the Mekong River Basin, the Ganges River, the Indus River and the Nile Valley, among many others.

Gunilla Carlsson, the Swedish minister for international development cooperation, points out that over 60 percent of the world’s population live in river basins that are shared by two or more countries.

“This is something we cannot ignore,” she told delegates. “We have one such water in our very city of Stockholm, the Baltic Sea. Its waves of history are filled with war and conflict, as well as with peace and cooperation.”

Carlsson also said transboundary water issues not only concern rivers or river basins, which require political and technical solutions between bordering nations, but also coastal areas and oceans, where no bordering nations exists.

According to the United Nations, more than 880 million people worldwide still do not have access to safe drinking water.

But there are some water experts, mostly pessimists, who predict that future military conflicts will be fought over scarce water resources.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admits that even though there is concern over the possibility of “violent disputes” over sharing limited water resources, cooperation is the most common response by people facing competing demands.

He buttresses his argument by pointing out that there are at least 300 international water agreements worldwide, often among parties that are otherwise at odds.

“These agreements demonstrate the potential of shared water resources to foster trust and promote peace,” he says.

In South Asia alone, three transboundary river basins sustain about half of the region’s 1.5 billion people, including some of the world’s poorest.

The three river basins that cover eight countries in the region include: the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (which spans Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India and Nepal); the Indus river basin (Afghanistan, China, India, Nepal and Pakistan); and the Helmand river basin (which covers Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan).

Munqeth Mehyar, chairperson, Friends of the Earth Middle East, told reporters that of the 1.3 billion cubic metres that would flow to replenish the Dead Sea, 100 million cubic metres is all that is left.

The river has seen over 95 percent of its waters diverted. The governments of Israel, Palestine and Jordan have signed agreements to restore the river. But these statements have yet to be followed up by any action, he added.

Mehyar, a national of Jordan, said Palestinians must get direct access to the river and Palestine deserves a share of the water as an equal riparian.

The budget for sustaining conflict and supporting wars is very large. But peace and restoration activities will only require a very small percentage of that budget, he added.

Meanwhile, in a new study released here, the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) says the response of the international water community to the mounting challenges and pressure placed on shared waters has thus far been “inconsistent and inadequate”.

Generally, the international water community is split into three camps over how transboundary flows relate to livelihoods, development and human, state and regional security.

Some emphasise the causal relationships between water scarcity (or floods) and violent conflict or poverty.

Others contend that the evidence of cooperation that exists globally suggests a comforting trend towards stability and wealth.

The third camp is between the two, but stresses the existence of numerous water conflicts that fall short of violence, says the study jointly authored and edited by Dr Anders Jagerskog, programme director at SIWI, Dr. Mark Zeitoun, senior lecturer at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and Anders Berntell, executive director SIWI.

“It seems obvious. Transboundary waters are highly political. And politics are ruled by power,” the authors argue.

Yet, traditional and emerging forms of interaction in the Mekong, Jordan, Ganges, the Nile and in so many other transboundary waterways reveal that the international community turns a blind eye to the power plays over water.

At the same time, too many have silently submitted to the notion that more equitable, sustainable and efficient transboundary water cooperation is not possible, says the study titled “Getting Transboundary Water Right: Theory and Practice for Effective Cooperation”.

In many transboundary water contexts, political power is asymmetrically distributed.

The most powerful riparian state is often able to determine the outcome of the interactions – for unilateral or collective good.

China’s financial assistance to Cambodia in sectors unrelated to the Mekong has been credited for ensuring official Cambodian acquiescence to the building of potentially devastating upstream dams.

Such use of “carrots” to induce cooperation is more welcome than the use of the “stick”, the study says.

Under this unilateral paradigm, however, states can resort to threats and coerce their neighbours to submit to an agreement whose terms may return to haunt them.

And by limiting the exploration of options, the strong-arming can also prevent the creation of a more sustainable agreement based on meeting common interests.

U.N. Summit on Climate Change Under Fire

By Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service, August 18, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, (IPS) – A much-ballyhooed U.N. summit on climate change, scheduled to take place on Sep. 22 in New York, is mired in controversy even before it gets off the ground.

The 130 developing countries of the Group of 77 have expressed serious concerns over the lopsided logistical arrangements, and worse still, the possibility of several heads of state being left out in the cold.

According to current plans, only a limited number of world leaders will be speaking at the summit while a “working dinner” to be hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is being confined to only 25 of the 192 world leaders who are expected to be present at the summit.

“While fully respecting the prerogative of the secretary-general in preparing this summit, we must ensure that the full membership of the United Nations is able to participate at the highest possible level for the summit to be a success,” Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed of Sudan, the chair of the G77, said in a letter to the secretary-general.

At an ambassadorial meeting of the G77 last week, speaker after speaker criticised the format of the summit and hinted at the possibility of a hidden political agenda.

“On what basis are these heads of state being asked to speak at the summit? And on what criteria are the 25 selected heads of state being invited for the so-called working dinner?” one ambassador asked.

Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general’s Climate Change Support Team, told reporters last month the summit is expected to lay a strong and necessary foundation of trust among leaders.

“The summit would provide a platform for heads of state and heads of government to consider the key political issues to be addressed during negotiations leading up to success in (the climate change meeting) in Copenhagen (in December),” he said.

The focus would be on interactive dialogue between heads of state and heads of government during roundtable discussions.

National statements would be delivered via pre-recorded video messages, he added.

The G77, which also includes China, says the U.N. summit should in no away attempt to prejudge the outcome of the critical negotiations that are to take place at the end of the year in Copenhagen under the auspices of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

Since a series of roundtable meetings are also scheduled to take place at the September summit, the G77 has told the secretary-general that these meetings should be “inclusive and open to active participation by all U.N. member states, including delegations that are unable to participate at the heads of state level, and regardless of the level in which they will participate.”

According to established U.N. protocol, heads of state are given precedence over heads of governments, foreign ministers, senior government officials and New York-based ambassadors.

But the G77 grouse is that even among heads of state, the upcoming summit will make a distinction as to who should participate in the summit and the roundtables, and who should be invited for the working dinner.

As one ambassador told IPS: “Since the summit is going to be on climate change, will the selected heads of state represent countries which are the worst polluters or the most environmentally friendly?”

In its letter to the secretary-general, the G77 says “since no decisions will be taken at the summit, the Group would like to request further clarification regarding the objective of the summit and a more detailed explanation of the expected accomplishment.”

Meanwhile, the secretary-general has proposed “a breakfast meeting” for another 20-25 heads of state who are not on the invitee’s list for the working dinner. But this is unlikely to assuage concerns of many.

The summit, which is expected to be attended by virtually all Western leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama, is being advanced as a high-profile one-day political meeting, just ahead of the high-level segment on the opening day of the General Assembly sessions.

Asked about the format of the meeting, Pasztor told reporters that, after the plenary (which will be open to the press), the summit would break up into four small roundtable sessions in the morning and four in the afternoon (all closed to the press) co-chaired by two heads of state or head of government.

But participants could be accompanied by only a single adviser.

The closing plenary (open to the press) would hear summaries of the round table sessions.

There would be no negotiated outcome, but the secretary-general, as chair of the summit, would provide a summary. In order to keep the focus on the discussions, no side events would be organised, Pasztor said.

He also said the objective of the summit was to arrive at a political vision, provide direction for the negotiations and provide the impetus to move them forward.

Should Water Be Legislated as a Human Right?

By Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service

UNITED NATIONS – The growing commercialisation of water – and the widespread influence of the bottling industry worldwide – is triggering a rising demand for the legal classification of one of the basic necessities of life as a human right.

“We definitely need a covenant or [an international] treaty on the right to water so as to establish once and for all that no one on earth must be denied water because of inability to pay,” says Maude Barlow, a senior adviser to the President of the U.N. General Assembly, on water issues.

“We’ve got to protect water as a human right,” she said, pointing out that the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva would be the most likely venue to propose such a covenant.

But it would be best, she added, if it were ratified by the 192-member General Assembly, currently presided over by Fr. Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, a former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua.

“We need at the United Nations more than a human rights remedy,” Barlow told IPS. “We need a plan of action for the General Assembly.”

The U.N. says that close to 880 million people – mostly in the developing world – lack adequate access to clean water. By 2030, close to 4 billion people could be living in areas suffering severe water stress, mostly in South Asia and China.

A study commissioned by the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), released in March, said the global market for water supply, sanitation and water efficiency is worth over 250 billion dollars – and is likely to grow to nearly 660 billion dollars by 2020.

Barlow said the Council of Canadians, which she heads, is working with countries promoting the right to water constitutionally.

A plebiscite in Uruguay, held four years ago, led to a referendum resulting in a constitutional amendment singling out water as both a human right and a public service to be delivered on a not-for-profit basis.

A Colombian group called Ecofundo has collected two million signatures in a plebiscite that is expected to lead to a referendum on the right to water.

Patricia Jones, an expert on water and manager of the Environmental Justice Programme at the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, told IPS that the U.S. negotiated against the appointment of a special U.N. rapporteur on the human right to water during a vote at the Human Rights Commission in March 2008.

Still, an independent expert was appointed, with a three-year mandate, to assist member states to identify the scope and content of the human right to water and sanitation.

“The opposition to the human right to water, of the previous U.S. administration, is changing,” Jones said.

She quoted U.S. President Barack Obama as saying in his inaugural address early this year: “to the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow.”

For the U.S., she pointed out, the economic stimulus package, and other funding, is going to address water availability issues within the U.S. “We do not have a comprehensive water policy at the national level; water is a devolved power of the states, with regulation through the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Quality Act.”

But Jones said the U.S. State Department staff participated in recent consultations on the human right to water and sanitation.

Barlow, the senior U.N. adviser on water issues, said: “We are winning some of the battle against the global corporate theft of water.”

“In my country [Canada], for instance, 53 municipalities – some of them big cities such as Vancouver and Toronto – have banned bottled water, and bottled water sales have dropped dramatically globally.”

Many municipalities worldwide are reversing the privatisation of their water services. The City of Paris, for example, is bringing its water services into the public sphere for the first time ever.

“We are also successfully introducing the notion of water as a public trust in political jurisdictions, asserting public control over this vital resource,” Barlow said. However, she noted, “we must be ever vigilant as new forms of private control are being advanced: water markets, water banking, water trading and water speculation are all on the horizon for those who would impose a market model of water allocation in the place of the public trust doctrine.”

Barlow said a recent example was the sale of privately traded water rights in Australia (which were introduced as a way to move water use toward sustainability) to a big American investment fund. This means that not only is this water not in public control, it is not even in the hands of Australians any more, she added.

Asked how investors can help solve the world’s water problems, Jones told IPS that investors can ensure that the water services investments they make would bring about the human right to water.

The U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) termed the existing priorities in global water services as “water apartheid,” reporting that there was enough water and financial resources to meet the current needs.

Still, it suggested that fully implementing existing legal obligations on the human right to water would go a long way to adjusting funding priorities toward water for the poor.

Some companies, such as Connecticut Water and PepsiCo have adopted a human right to water policy, Jones said.

Barlow said the international community should be watching the “superpowers” who are now looking outside their borders for water supplies – as they did for oil.

She said China is already constructing a pipeline to funnel water from the Tibetan Himalayas.

Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS), Assam writes to Indian PM protesting Tipaimukh Dam

To

Mr. Manmohan Singh,

Prime Minister of India,

New Delhi.

(Through the Deputy Commissioner of Golaghat District, Assam)

Sub:  Protest against Big Dam and Ensure Social Justice During the time Drought

Dear Mr. Singh,

Greetings from Assam! We would like to bring to your notice the repeated and continuing subversion of downstream concerns in Assam during the rapid development of dams in Arunachal Pradesh.  As of June 2009, the Arunachal Pradesh government has already signed agreements (MoUs) for 103 hydroelectric projects for 30, 000 MW. Recent times have seen grave concern being expressed about the poorly studied downstream livelihood and ecological impacts of large dams in both Arunachal Pradesh and neighbouring Assam. The concerns include loss of fisheries, changes in beel (wetland) ecology in the flood plains, agricultural losses, increased flood vulnerability due to massive boulder extraction from river beds and sudden water releases from reservoirs in the monsoons.  But the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) continues to ask project authorities to restrict their studies to 10 km. downstream of a project. We would like you to personally intervene in this serious matter, both as the PM of the country, as well as a Rajya Sabha MP from Assam.  The issue was debated in the Assam Legislative Assembly recently and a House Panel has been set up to investigate the matter. But, the Central government is still ignoring these issues. The latest in this series of subversion of downstream concerns of Assam is the 1750 MW Demwe Lower project being built on the Lohit river.  Two public hearings are being scheduled for this project in Arunachal Pradesh on August 11^th and 12^th. But no downstream impact assessment has been done in the project, both in Arunachal Pradesh and neighbouring Assam.  We would like to urge you to immediately ask for cancellation of these public hearings and initiation of proper downstream impact assessment studies first.  Public consultation will have to be done both in Arunachal Pradesh and downstream Assam after detailed downstream studies have first been completed.

We would like to remind you that in spite of downstream concerns being brought to the notice of the MoEF and its Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on River Valley and Hydroelectric projects over the past few years, Terms of Reference (ToR) for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) studies for over 30 projects in Arunachal Pradesh granted over the last two years have all been restricted to 10 km. downstream of the project! This is a joke considering the huge conflicts in the downstream areas of mega projects such as the 2000.

MW Lower Subansiri and 405 MW Ranganadi Stage – I in recent times. Your office (PMO) did ask for downstream impact studies to be done in Lower Subansiri, but only after the construction work had begun and the project was a fait accompli. In the 1500 MW Tipaimukh hydroelectric project too, the MoEF only asked for downstream impact assessment studies as a post-clearance condition in its environmental clearance letter of October 2008: “Due to construction of the dam, downstream impacts of the project in the State of Assam should be studied.” What is the use of doing downstream impact studies as a formality after work has already begun? We believe that such actions of your government are seriously compromising the social and environmental security of Assam.  If these concerns are not taken seriously, the region will see major conflicts on this issue and your government will be responsible for pushing destructive development projects on the people of the Northeast.

At the same time we like to tell you that the Assam govt. has made a lot of statements on the dams issue and perhaps written letter to New Delhi, the situation has not changed on the ground. In fact it has only worsened. This clearly shows that the efforts of the Assam government are clearly inadequate.  Here are some examples of the rapid developments in recent times which are completely ignoring downstream issues:

In the last two years the Central Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) has given pre-construction clearance to at least 34 hydroelectric projects in Arunachal Pradesh. While giving pre-construction clearance, they have also prescribed ‘Terms of Reference’ for conduct of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) studies. For all projects, without exception, the downstream impact studies have been asked to be restricted to 10 km. only! Therefore the impact on Assam is totally ignored.

The 1500 MW Tipamukh project in Manipur was given final environmental clearance in October 2008 without studying downstream impacts on Southern Assam. One of the post-clearance condition states: ” Due to construction of the dam, downstream impacts of the project in the State of Assam should be studied.’ The same strategy is being employed as in 405 MW Ranganadi and 2000 MW Lower Subansiri. First start work and then ask for downstream study! This is complete nonsense.

On July 10^th (2009) the Supreme Court of India lifted the restriction on construction of dams upstream of Lower Subansiri. Now 19 more large dams can be built upstream of Lower Subansiri on the main Subansiri river and its major tributary the Kamala.  So even before NHPC can settle all the serious conflicts in the 2000 MW Lower Subansiri project, it has already started planning for the 2000 MW Upper Subansiri and 1600 MW Middle Subansiri.

Three public hearings for mega dams will be held in Arunachal Pradesh in August 2009. One for the 3000 MW Dibang Multipurpose on August 6^th. Two for the 1750 MW Lower Demwe project (on the Lohit) on August 11^th and 12^th.  Both projects have not studied downstream impacts on Assam as their studies were restricted to 10 km. downstream of the project.  This is a big threat to the Tinsukia district of Assam which government of Assam has completely ignored.  Important ecosystems such as the Dibru – Saikhowa National Park will be impacted by the dams on the Lohit too.

This issue is urgent and serious. As of June 2009, the Arunachal Pradesh government has already signed MoUs for 103 dams for 30,000 MW! They want to sign a total of 135 MoUs for 57, 000 MW.  We are facing a crisis. We ask GoI to put a moratorium on all dam clearances from New Delhi till the Assam Assembly panel investigates the issue. We ask Govt. should immediately make public the interim downstream impact study of the Lower Subansiri project.  Why is it being kept a ‘secret”?  Any future decision whether to start work or not can only be taken after the completion of full downstream study and detailed public consultation.

The people of the downstream will not tolerate the ignoring of downstream issues any more. We hope you will address these important concerns at the earliest.

We demand moratorium on the mega hydrel projects in North East India.

While we draw your attention to the serious issues of big dam we would like to highlight the drought in Assam. As you are aware the Assam government has declared several districts as drought affected areas. Mere declaration without taking into account the long term policy matters the state will continue to suffer. We strongly argue that the Assam government should be supported and be given clear direction to ensure social justice during this severe natural calamity we also argue that total irrigation be implemented in the state at the earliest.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

(Mulan Laskar)                                                                                             (Akhil Gogoi) General Secretary                                                                                              President

Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti, Assam

Copy to: Mr. Tarun Gogoi, Chief Minister, Assam.

Silchar Memo Submitted to the Bangladesh Parliamentary Committee visiting Tipaimukh

Society of Activists & Volunteers for Environment (SAVE)
‘PURBAPATH’, Malugram, Silchar-788 002, Assam

Date: 01-8-09

To
The Chairman
Parliamentary Team, Bangladesh
(Constituted to visit the proposed Tipaimukh Dam site. Through His Excellency, Hon’ble High Commissioner, Bangladesh, Kolkata).

Sub:- Memorandum opposing construction of Tipaimukh Dam in view of the devastating environmental impact on downstream of Barak basin in general and Barak Valley in particular.

Sir,

At the very outset, we offer you and all your team members a warm and heartily welcome to our land and thank you for your deep concern about the impact on environment emanating from the construction of Tipaimukh Dam at the upstream of Barak river.

With deep anguish, we have observed that during recent days, lot of hue and cry are being registered, all opposing the construction of an ‘water bomb’ at Tipaimukh. A handful of protests have been witnessed in Manipur, Barak Valley of Assam, besides lot many from your native country, Bangladesh. We look at all these protests from the environmental and human point of view, sincerely believe that any force, that lacks in feeling for the environmental impact of the proposed dam should be dealt with severely. The words ‘Think globally – Act locally’ has been our guiding force and keeping these words in the back of mind, we sincerely like to draw your kind attention on the facts mentioned hereunder;

(I) That Sir, We sincerely believe that there should be an extensive downstream environmental impact study from the proposed dam site upto sea-mouth should be jointly conducted at the initiative of the Government of India and Bangladesh where experts from Non Government Organisations particularly from the environmental outfits, IITs and Universities must be included to asses the possible detrimental impact on the environment and life of inhabitants in the catchment areas at large, without downstream impact study, if a clean-cheat to the project is given it would be detrimental for both environment and people at large and struggling outfits of both in India and Bangladesh in particular.

(II) That Sir, the proposed dam falls at the confluence of Indo-Burma, Indo-Malayan and Indo-Chinese Biodiversity hotspot zone. These areas are characterised by the presence of a large number plant and animal species, many of which are not seen or seldom witnessed in rest part of the world. A large number of them have been categorised as endangered and threatened as the IUCN Red Data book and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Once the dam is constructed, these innocent endangered and threatened species would have no other alternative, but to perish! Under such a situation, does the construction of a dam in the proposed site speak quite well in favour of Biodiversity conservation?

(III) We strongly believe and observe with deep concern that this rock filled 500 mts. long and 162.8 mt. high dam to be constructed at the earthquake zone-V, Wherein there will be constant pressure of water, if for any reason cracks, the entire civilization of the whole of downstream will be washed down in no time. The age old Barak-Surma culture will live in history only. Can any force or technology prevent
this and ensure against such catastrophic mishap?

(IV) Besides the above mentioned burning issues, other important impact like water scarcity, Crop cultivation, navigation, siltation, ecological imbalance, river pollution, extinction of aquatic life forms and the like are never the less important frontier areas that deserve careful and serious attention, before construction of the dam. Keep all these in view, we sincerely believe that your good office will consider all the matters seriously and looking the entire issues from the Pro-environment and Pro-human point of view, would strongly oppose the construction of the Tipaimuk dam, the life time curse for the inhabitants of Barak-Surma basin.

With warm regards,
Sincerely Yours

(Dr. Parthankar Choudhury)
President, SAVE

(Pijush Kanti Das)
Secretary, SAVE

NB: This memorandum was prepared to hand over to the visiting team but as they could not arrived at Silchar we could not submit to them. We therefore request you to hand over the same using your best source, we will remain grateful for that.

(Pijush Kanti Das)
Secretary, SAVE

Rich Countries’ Carbon Debt: $23 trillion

Developed countries would need to reduce their emissions by 213% by 2050, for developing countries to maintain their current per capita emission level

By Martin Khor, Malaysian Star, August 3, 2009

High-polluting developed countries have already used up much of the world’s “carbon space,” and should pay up their carbon debt to facilitate in fair global deal on climate change.

Next week, climate negotiations resume in Bonn in an attempt to reach a global deal in Copenhagen in December. There are intense pressures to get developing nations like China, India, Brazil and Asean countries to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But the promised financial and technology transfers to help them move are still nowhere in sight.

The western media seems to blame developing countries for holding up a deal.

“India rejects green agenda with refusal to cut emissions for decade,” is the headline of a front-page article in the Financial Times on Aug 1.

But it is unfair to expect developing countries to commit to emission reduction before they are assured of the funds and technology they need to change from one production system to another.

Developed countries have a historical responsibility to help developing countries because they have already taken up most of the “atmospheric space” available.

The atmosphere can only absorb so much carbon dioxide and other climate-dangerous gases. Above the danger level, the average global temperature will rise by more than 2° Celsius, with disastrous consequences.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere have to be limited to 450 parts per million (ppm) or even 350ppm, and global emissions must be cut by 50% to 85% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

The key question for the Copenhagen “global deal” is how to assign the emission-reduction task fairly between developed and developing countries.

Developed countries are proposing a 50% global GHG emission cut by 2050 (from 38 billion in 1990 to 19.3 billion tonnes in 2050). They are willing to take a 80% cut from 18.3 billion to 3.6 billion tonnes which implies that developing countries would have to accept a 20% cut from 20 billion to 15.7 billion tones.

As the population of developing countries is expected to double during that period, they will end up with a 60% cut per capita. And since population size is projected to remain the same in developed countries, their per capita reduction will be the same as their overall reduction at 80%.

It is unfair to ask developing countries to undertake a per capita emission cut just slightly below the cut that developed countries are prepared to make.

If developed countries were to make a 100% cut, developing countries would still be required to make a 52% cut per capita.

Developed countries would need to reduce their emissions by 213% by 2050, for developing countries to maintain their current per capita emission level.

Developed countries would, in other words, need to cut emissions to 0% and create sinks to absorb greenhouse gases equivalent to another 113% of their 1990 emissions.

To both developed and developing countries, this may seem impossible. For developing countries it may seem impossible to achieve economic development while maintaining (instead of increasing) their current, low per-capita level of emissions.

For developed countries it may seem impossible to go beyond a 100% emission cut. But it may need two impossibles to make a possible deal.

In order not to exceed the danger level, the world has around 600 billion tonnes of emission of carbon (equivalent to around 2,200 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide) to budget between 1800 and 2050.

Given their ratio of world population, the equitable share of the carbon budget for developed countries is 125 billion tonnes while developing countries would be 475 billion tonnes.

The developed countries, however, have already emitted 240 billion tonnes of carbon between 1800 and 2008. This is far above their “fair share” of 81 billion tonnes in that period.

And, given the scenario of a 50% global cut and an 85% developed country cut by 2050, they will emit another 85 billion tonnes of carbon between 2009 and 2050.

Thus, their total emission would be 325 billion tonnes of carbon from 1800 to 2050.

Since their fair share is 125 billion tonnes, they have a “carbon debt” of 200 billion tonnes, which they owe to developing countries.

On the other hand, if carbon space were allocated fairly, developing countries would have a share of 475 billion tonnes of carbon emissions between 1800 and 2050.

However, the situation till now, plus the scenarios for now to 2050, would mean that developing countries in actual fact would only emit 275 billion tonnes of carbon which is 200 billion tonnes less than their fair share.

In a fair climate deal, developed countries would compensate developing countries the equivalent of 200 billion tonnes of carbon. This is equivalent to 733 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Economist Nicholas Stern in his book The Global Deal gives a value of carbon dioxide of US$40 (RM141) per tonne in the carbon trade. From 1800 to 2008, developed countries have a carbon debt of 159 billion tonnes, or 583 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

At US$40 (RM141) per tonne, the value of this carbon debt would be US$23 trillion (RM81 trillion). The carbon debt can be put in a global climate fund to help developing countries take action to cut their emissions.

Although US$23 trillion (RM81 trillion) may seem like a lot, it is only a little more than the US$18 trillion (RM63.4 trillion) that developed countries have reportedly set aside for bailouts and provisions of banks and companies in trouble during the present financial crisis.

Though saving the banks may be important, saving the world from climate catastrophe is even more important and necessary.

If this approach and the fund can be agreed to, we would be well on the road to a global deal in Copenhagen.