See http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4301283/GCM-Resources-in-the-red-with-loss-of-690000.html.

See http://www.carbontracker.org/coalcapital.

Read the report at http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/01/CoalCapitalbriefingJan12.pdf.

A third of coal listed in the UK is actually located in Australia, where the government has recently agreed to deliver a carbon tax and emissions trading scheme. So “UK” investors are potentially exposed to climate change regulatory risk in Australia. However, Australia and Indonesia export around three-quarters of their coal production. So, in fact, around half of the coal owned by UK-listed companies is supplying developing economies in China, Russia, India and South Africa. Many asset owners and fund managers representing $20trillion of capital reiterated their call for the Durban climate negotiations at the end of November to deliver a 2°C policy framework. Now is the time for them to also ask financial regulators to deliver a 2°C capital market system. The FSA needs to address the systemic risks of reserves concentrating on the London Stock Exchange and monitor the levels of fossil fuels listed in London. Asset owners investing in the UK market should request that the FSA introduces limits to the levels of overseas fossil fuel reserves. Accountants and analysts should review which reserves are lower quality due to risk of climate regulation, and climate change, and discount their value accordingly.

Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England governor warned

An open letter to Sir Mervyn King says overexposure to high-carbon assets by London-listed companies risks creating a ‘carbon bubble’.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuels-sub-prime-mervyn-king?INTCMP=SRCH.

Read the letter at http://www.carbontracker.org/linkfileshare/Letter-to-Bank-of-England-Financial-Policy-Committee-19th-January-2012-Final.pdf.

See http://www.mining.com/2012/01/18/company-plans-to-mine-a-billion-tonnes-of-coal-off-wales-without-miners/.

See http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-17/news/30635866_1_icvl-coking-coal-international-coal-ventures.

See http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/10539469/613361253/name/111120+Guajira+communities++statement+-+English+version.pdf.

Among London-listed mining companies active in Colombia are Anglo American, AngloGold Ashanti, BHP Billiton, Glencore, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11381&l=1.

Bangladeshi activists demonstrate against GCM Resources

See Morning Star report on the demonstration organised by the UK Branch of the National Committee for the Protection of Bangladesh’s Oil, Gas, Natural Resource, Power and Ports.

For a fact sheet on the Phulbari project, see http://www.accountabilityproject.org/downloads/Phulbari%20Factsheet%20with%20Footnotes.pdf. Other background information on the Phulbari project is at http://www.accountabilityproject.org/article.php?list=type&type=43.

Report on the Annual General Meeting of GCM Resources, London, 15 December 2011

The 2011 GCM Resources AGM was held on 15 December in an upstairs room in an unprepossessing office block near the Tower of London. Sounds of the lively demonstration against the company, being held on the pavement outside, drifted into the room, where around two dozen shareholders had gathered.

During questions on GCM’s annual report and accounts, some of the company’s critics challenged the Board to abandon its key project, the Phulbari opencast coal mine planned for north western Bangladesh.

Kate Hoshour, of San Francisco-based International Accountability Project, asked about the likelihood of further violence if GCM persists in its efforts to force through the Phulbari project despite massive and sustained opposition from Bangladeshi citizens and the people of Phulbari. She pointed out that three people had already been killed, including a fourteen year old boy, and as many as 200 wounded, for the simple act of marching in protest against the project. She said that the World Organization Against Torture had twice issued urgent alerts expressing deep concern that “police and security forces may again employ violence to deal with public opposition to the Phulbari open-pit mining project” and “further violence, ill-treatment and even deaths may ensue if local communities again seek to give public expression to their opposition,” and that an Expert Committee formed to assess the project had concluded that there is “a high risk of social unrest and conflict” if GCM attempts to forcibly relocate tens of thousands of people in Phulbari, adding “40,000 by your own estimate, although I dispute your figures on the number of people who would be displaced.”

Kate said that although GCM states on its website that it will comply with the Equator Principles and with the guidelines of the International Finance Corporation, these require companies to build and maintain a constructive relationship with project-affected communities.  She said that there is overwhelming evidence that GCM has failed to meet this minimum requirement. The people of Phulbari have repeatedly called for GCM to be permanently expelled from their community, and have made a permanent ban on GCM operating within Bangladesh one of six demands for ending a hunger strike following the massacre in 2006. She asked whether GCM was concerned about the volatility of the situation on the ground in Phulbari, the great potential for further violence and loss of life, and the reputational risk that further violence and disregard for standards of corporate responsibility pose to GCM.

Company Chairman Gerald Holden replied that GCM had condemned the deaths during the August 2006 demonstrations, and had worked with the Bangladesh authorities before the demonstration. The company had withdrawn its personnel from the area and made clear to the authorities that it did not want any violence. The company, however, had a different reading of the situation from Kate’s. Gerald Holden said that he had recently been in Phulbari and had received a positive response – most people supported the mining project and wanted the company to proceed with it quickly. [Commenting on this statement from Bangladesh after the AGM, Anu Muhammad of the National Committee for the Protection of Bangladesh’s Oil, Gas, Natural Resource, Power and Ports said that nobody from GCM would be able to return alive from Phulbari after talking about constructing an opencast mine, such is the strength of opposition to the project. He said that the fact that the company’s office in Phulbari remained closed was sufficient evidence of their lack of an accepted place in the community.]

Gerald Holden said he was happy to hear what Kate had to say and was confident that the project would go ahead in line with the Equator Principles, which he had spent four years putting together. He said that the company believes that the project will help local people and improve their livelihoods and that it can be developed sustainably; and that the company does not support violence in any way.

Roger Moody, of Nostromo Research, said that one of the important elements of the Equator Principles is “consultation” with NGOs and affected peoples. However, on 1st January 2012 the World Bank-IFC will introduce revised performance standards that will include the right to Free Prior Informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples – not simply consultation. He asked what steps the company was taking to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free Prior Informed Consent; and whether it acknowledged that this must involve consultation processes carried out independently of the company.

Company Chairman Gerald Holden replied that there is a debate between business and NGOs on the matter of Free Prior Informed Consent. He said that he believed that consultation was the way to go, but that if consent were not obtained, the company would not have the social licence to operate. He said that the company would work with its local consultants and the local communities.

Roger said that he had been in Phulbari just before the killings in 2006. A social anthropologist contracted by the company was intervening in local communities in an unacceptable manner, preventing the honest ascertaining of opinion. Roger noted that the company’s website said that a revised Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) would be done after the Government of Bangladesh had given permission for the project to proceed. This put the cart before the horse. Roger reminded the Board that he had conducted a detailed study of the potential impacts of the project and that none of the issues raised in his report had been addressed in the three years since it had been published. He asked the Chairman whether he would participate in an open forum to debate these issues.

Company Chairman Gerald Holden replied that he would. He said that the ESIA and Feasibility Study were ‘live’ documents. The Bangladesh Government had asked the company to wait until they had done their own studies before the company conducts further studies itself. There will be a lot of work to be done once the Government approves the project. He said that the company is willing to sit down with its critics anywhere. He invited Roger to work with the company to improve the project.

Roger replied that he would not work with the company but would be happy to debate the issues.

Samina Luthfa, who is researching the Phulbari project for a doctoral thesis at Oxford University, noted that the company had said that it had consulted with the indigenous people to be affected by the mine. She said that as part of her DPhil research she had stayed in Phulbari for seven months in 2010. During her ethnographic field work she had frequently visited 54 villages of eight unions covering all four sub-districts that would be affected within a five mile radius of the proposed mine. Among those villages, most villagers had reported that there had been no consultation at all. Twenty villages had reported that consultation meetings were thwarted by public dissent, generated by the fact that company employees were trying to use attendance signatures as evidence of consent to mining. Given this evidence, she asked, how did the company expect its critics to believe that it would uphold the Equator Principles as stated on its website?

Samina then asked about the risk of investment in the Phulbari project. She said that her quantitative data analysis on 398 open pit mines and mineral deposits in India and Bangladesh showed that without taking into consideration any political volatility indices and only drawing on demographic and ecological factors such as population density, forest coverage, literacy, poverty, and tribal population, the project with the highest probability of generating protest is the Phulbari Coal Mine. Given such evidence, how safe did investors feel in investing in such a high risk venture?

The Chairman said that he looked forward to reading Samina’s study. He offered no response to the issues she raised.

After the formal business of the meeting had been finished, the Chairman read out a statement of the company’s view of the prospects for the Phulbari project. He said that he was confident that the project would go ahead because of the “fast, low-risk” contribution it would make to Bangladesh’s electricity supply. He said that approval is a political decision over which the company had no control, so it could not predict its timing. He said that GCM has the capability to carry the project forward but that partnerships with other companies could help, and GCM is in conversation with the Bangladesh Government about this. He said that the fall in share price this year is mostly likely a result of increasingly risk-averse investors who had depressed the share price of companies with non-active mining projects and GCM’s Board shared investors’ disappointment over the fall in the company’s share price [which rose after the meeting].

Further questions were raised after the Chairman’s statement.

Kate Hoshour said that protests involving tens of thousands of people continue, and that the Bangladesh Government had deployed the notorious Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) to at least two of these demonstrations during the past year. RAB has been subject to investigation by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which have each carried out recent independent investigations of the increase in extrajudicial executions carried out by RAB forces, RAB’S routine use of torture, and the death of people in RAB custody. She asked how the project could be considered “low risk” under these circumstances. How could the company make the claim that it would improve the livelihoods of people of local people when 80% of all people acknowledged to be displaced by the project have land-based livelihoods, yet the company’s draft Resettlement Plan clearly states that it will not provide land-for-land compensation to people displaced by the project, and baldy states that “most will become landless”? She also asked if GCM was aware of the large body of research on the displacement of people with land-based livelihoods showing that reliance on cash compensation alone is insufficient and results in impoverishment.

There was a disagreement over the number of individual indigenous people in the area to be affected by the project.  Gerald Holden said that it was only about 1,000.  Kate replied that GMC’s own Resettlement Plan states that the project will displace 2,200. She said that Bangladesh’s Indigenous Union (Jatiya Adivasi Parishad) estimates that 50,000 indigenous individuals would be displaced or impoverished by the project.

GCM’s Chief Executive Officer, Steve Bywater, said that he would not respond to all Kate’s points because they were, he alleged, ‘wildly inaccurate’ [surely making it all the more important that he correct them?]. He said that Kate was mixing up protests against oil and gas leases with protests by the people of Phulbari. It was pointed out from the floor that the recent massive protests were about a whole range of foreign-owned energy projects, including Phulbari, but Mr Bywater did not respond to this. He said that there are 2,300 indigenous people in the area.

Replying to his charge that her statements were “wildly inaccurate,” Kate asked Mr Bywater whether the draft Resettlement Plan does state that 80% of project-affected households have land-based livelihoods, and whether it also states that most will become landless.

Steve Bywater repeated that he would not answer all of Kate’s points. He said that the entire pit would be rehabilitated within five years. People in the immediate area would become landless. As part of the compensation arrangements, people would have a choice – they could accept cash payments, though the company would prefer that they not take cash. He then went on to say that most people in the area do not own their land, and are squatters. [He did not spell out the implications for these people’s eligibility for cash compensation. Having stated that displaced residents would have a choice, he did not then state what they would be able to choose if they did not choose the cash compensation that he had said the company preferred them not to take. He did not refer to the company’s clear written statement that there are insufficient possibilities for providing them with replacement land. On the face of it, therefore, the choice for displaced residents will be cash compensation or nothing – and the company, apparently, prefers that they not choose the cash compensation.] He said that Bangladesh had a poor record on compensation, though it was being done better now at the nearby Barapukuria coal mine.

Kate asked him if he was aware of the protests the previous week over corruption in the disbursement of compensation at Barapukuria. Steve Bywater said that he could not comment on this.

Shareholder Zahid Ai expressed gratitude to the company for all that it was doing, stating that it is difficult to operate in the subcontinent with corrupt governments and obstructionist parties which want to stop progress. He asked about reports that the Bangladesh Government wanted a pilot mine developed in the Phulbari region.

Company CEO Steve Bywater replied that to do a pilot study it would be necessary to dig down to the coal deposit, necessitating a large investment, so he doubted that it would be done. The Chairman added that he agreed with expert opinion that such a pilot project is unnecessary as the Phulbari project is not technologically difficult. The big single technical issue is water management. Other issues were community relations and the need to train a workforce.

Shareholder Tim Blackstone said that all decisions in Bangladesh seem to emanate from the Prime Minister. He asked how many times Mr Bywater had met the Prime Minister.

Steve Bywater replied that he had never met the Prime Minister, who would not routinely meet company CEOs, and added that it would not really be appropriate for her to do so. But the company is in constant contact with the Ministers for Land and Finance and other cabinet ministers.

Mr Blackstone asked whether the company had a presence on the ground in Phulbari.

Steve Bywater replied that the company had seven people in the local area and around 60 elsewhere in Bangladesh. The company was maintaining a very low profile in the Phulbari area at the request of the Bangladesh Government [an odd request, if the company is as popular in the area as it claims to be].

Nasir Uddin read out a statement from local organisations in the Phulbari area opposing GCM’s opencast project. He handed the statement to the Board after the meeting. [The text of the statement is towards the end of this posting.]

Richard Solly, of London Mining Network, handed the Chairman a statement from a US-based Indigenous rights organisation, Cultural Survival. Cultural Survival asked whether the company accepted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes their right to Free Prior Informed Consent and which had been signed by the UK Government. Cultural Survival was concerned that the company’s Indigenous Peoples’ Development Plan admits that the project would have certain negative impacts on indigenous people and that these impacts violate the UN Declaration. [The text of this statement is at the end of this posting.]

Company Chairman Gerald Holden said that the company does accept the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He noted the dispute over the meaning of Free Prior Informed Consent, claiming at one point that it implies that one or two individual objections to a project could prevail over majority opinion within an Indigenous community [whereas in fact FPIC involves Indigenous Peoples making decisions according to their own decision-making processes, which differ from one People to another].

Samina Luthfa asked for an answer to her question about attendance signatures being passed off as evidence of consent.

The Chairman said that he did not believe that this had happened.

Samina pointed out that she had carried out detailed research on the ground. GCM Resources people had been reluctant to talk to her; local residents had voiced strong opposition to the mine. She also asked about problems at Barapukuria.

Steve Bywater said that the problem at Barapukuria had been unexpected subsidence. He said that GCM Resources would not have mined the deposit there using deep pit methods and added that it was “dangerous.”

Kate Hoshour asked again about consultation. She read from a letter from Steve Bywater which states: “Dissemination of project information and consultations with the local community (in both English and Bengali) were in progress until mid 2006 when a period of political instability took hold in the country and at the same time a protest was held in the project area. As a result our communication and consultation process in the project area was interrupted.”  Kate noted that the letter then states that consultation would resume only after GCM receives approval for the project.  Pointing out that the letter is dated 10th March 2010, Kate noted that this indicates that GCM had at that point not consulted with the community for nearly four years.  Referring back to Mr Bywater’s remarks, Kate asked why the government had requested that GCM personnel in Phulbari keep a “very low profile,” pointing out that this does not suggest that GCM has a social license to operate in the area.

Company Chairman Gerald Holden said that the company follows what the Government of Bangladesh asks of it. He said that the project needs broad support before it goes ahead.

At the end of the meeting, Samina Luthfa presented the Chairman with the following ‘eviction notice’.

Department of Housing

Eviction Notice

We regret to inform you now that your home has been taken over for the coal reserve found underground

Effective Immediately

If you do not leave now, you will be beaten, tear-gassed and fired upon. If you die, your family should be happy for not obstructing the path of our profit-making spree.

This may seem harsh but believe it or not, these things have happened in the green countryside of Bangladesh. A UK-based company, GCM Resources PLC, financed by global hedge funds, is trying to displace more than 100,000 people from a very densely populated, fertile region called Phulbari in Bangladesh for extracting coal that they propose to export for their profit.  Farmers, teachers, agricultural workers, businessmen, endangered indigenous ethnic minorities, will be forced to leave their homes if this mine goes ahead. People in Phulbari are resisting. They were brutally repressed on 26th August 2006, when 3 of the protestors were killed and more than 100 were injured.

People from Phulbari need your solidarity!  Please join the blockade against the plunderers at GCM

From: Department of Housing (On behalf of People of Bangladesh)
TO: GCM RESOURCES PLC, UK.

Eviction Notice

We regret to inform you that your home in Bangladesh has been taken over:  Effective Immediately

On behalf of people of Phulbari, Bangladesh, we serve you this eviction notice to leave our country at once. You have been charged with provocation to violence, corruption, and political manoeuvring to get a deal that is disastrous for our people, our environment and our national interest.

WE DO NOT WANT GCM RESOURCES PLC IN PHULBARI!!  WE DO NOT WANT GCM RESOURCES PLC IN BANGLADESH!!

WE SHALL PROTECT OUR RESOURCES WITH OUR LIVES!!

NO OPEN PIT   NO FOREIGN COMPANY   NO EXPORT

GO HOME GCM!  YOU HAVE BEEN EVICTED!!

Statement from organisations in Bangladesh

December 15, 2011

To
Investors and Shareholders
GCM Resources Plc
London, United Kingdom

Dear Investor/Shareholder,

Subject:  Call for withdrawal of investment from Phulbari Coal Project

We are writing to you on behalf of the people of Phulbari, Birampur, Nababganj and Parbatipur upazillas (sub-districts), Bangladesh to request to remove/withdraw your investment from Global Coal Management Plc and political risk guarantee for the Phulbari Coal Mine Project. Global Coal Management Resources is moving forward to implement a project in South-eastern Bangladesh, Phulbari, which will increase the poverty of the local population as well as cause environmental disaster.

An incarnation of the notorious Asia Energy plc which was thrown out of Bangladesh by people’s movement in 2006, GCM Resources Plc’s Phulbari mine will:

• Destroy 14,660 acres of highly fertile land crucial to food production.
• Displace nearly a quarter of a million people – most of them indigenous farmers, destroying their land and livelihood
• Cause massive environmental devastation- acid poisoning of soil and water and air pollution in a densely populated region.
•  Allow GCM to take away 94% of coal resources and on top of that they’ll benefit from 9 years of tax holiday!
• Force Bangladesh to buy its own coal at the exorbitant prices of the international market.

There are serious issues of contention about whom we consider “affected” people.   We do not accept that approximately 50,000 people would be affected by the project.  Based on our census of number of families in each neighborhood, we believe that this number will range somewhere from 200,000 to 500,000. The population density in the area (4,245 people/sq. km) is extremely high combined with immense value of the land given that it is extremely rich in arable land, livestock, fisheries and forestry. Moreover, the communal harmony between the indigenous people and the Bengalis as well as different religious groups that has long existed in the area was threatened by the dubious activities of the company. On August 26, 2006, however, people from various religious and ethnic groups came together against such conspiracies, which have thrown out GCM’s first initiative to implement the Phulbari project. Nevertheless, GCM Resources continue its conspiracy and aggression to Phulbari.
We condemn such aggression and we would like to let you know that the long struggle of the people of Phulbari and the sacrifices made for this cause firmly state that open pit coal mining in a densely populated region like Bangladesh will not be accepted by the local people.

We express each of our grave concerns and request you to express your solidarity. We request you to withdraw your investment to this distractive project.

Sincerely,

Liyakat Ali, Commander
Freedom Fighter’s Sangsad Phulbari Command Council

Komolchandra Saha
Phulbari Dokan Karmachari Union (Shop Employees’ Union)

Sayema Begum
Women Representative, Shibnagar, Phulbari

M A Quayum
Phulbari Byabshai samity (Trader’s Samiti)

Ramai Soren
Jatiya Adivasi Samiti (Indigenous Association)

Habibur Rahman
Kuli Sramik Union (Day Loborers’ Union)

Md. Alauddin
Nirman Sramik Union (Construction Workers’ Union)

Matiur Rahman, Secretary
Rickshaw-Van Union

Srimoti Murmu
Bangladesh Adivasi Union (Indigenous Union)

Pradeep Sarker
Bullet injured, Shahbazpur

Professor Shah Md. Iliyasur Rahman
College Teachers’ Samiti

Abdul Majid
Jatiya Krishak Kshet Majur Samiti (National Peasant and Farmig Laborer’s Union)

Jainal
Krishak Samiti (Peasants’ Union)

Shafiqul Islam Sikdar
Jatiya Krishak Samiti (National Peasants’ Union)

Nur Islam
Boropukuria Coal Mine Sramik Adhikar Andolon, Parbatipur

Md Jahidul Islam
Boropukuria Coal Mine Sramik Adhikar Andolon, Parbatipur

Md. Sher Ali
General Secretary, Majar Parichalna Committee (Shrine Committee)

Naebuddin
Community  leader Dodolia

Dr. Mohammad Solaiman, Secretary
Phulbari Homeopathy Welfare Association

Shibnagar Gupta, General Secretary
Kalibari Mandir (Temple) Committee, Phulbari

Md Ajmal Hossain, Secretary
Nimtala Jame Masjid (Mosque committee)

Motiur Rahman, President
Jatiyo Imam Samity (Imam association), Dinajpur

Sompa Chisty
Women representative, Nimnogor, Balubari

Abu Taher
Community Leader, Khayerbari Union

Yakub Ali
Community Leader, Khanpur Union

Parimal Roy
Community Leader, Shibnagar

Aminul Islam Bablu
Community Leader, Phulbari

Rafiqul Islam Sarkar
Community Leader, Birampur

Shahjahan Ali
Community Leader, Nababganj

Lutfar
Community Leader, Shahbajpur

Nasir member
Community Leader, Shahbajpur

Mahmud Hasan Babu
Community Leader, Phulbari

Shahriar Kabir Sunny
Community Leader, Phulbari

Hafizar
Community Leader, Madhyapara Granite Mine

Jai Prakash Gupta
Community Leader, Phulbari

Mojammel Huq
Community Leader, Parbatipur

Biplob Das
Community Leader, Phulbari

Jobirul Islam
Community Leader, Ratanpur

Abdul Majid Chowdhury
Community Leader, Phulbari

Najar Ahmed
Community Leader, Phulbari

Saiful Islam Jewel
Convenor, National Committee to Protect Oil Gas Mineral Resources Port and Power, Phulbari Chapter

S M Nuruzzaman
Member Secretary, National Committee to Protect Oil Gas Mineral Resources Port and Power, Phulbari Chapter

Text of the statement and questions from Cultural Survival

Statement/Question posed by:
Paula Palmer, Director of Cultural Survival’s Global Response Program
Boulder, Colorado, USA

Mr. Chairman,

My organization, Cultural Survival, advocates for the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as they are set forth in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Kingdom endorses this Declaration. My first question to you is: Has GCM endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?  And if not, will you undertake to do so?

The Indigenous Peoples Development Plan prepared by Asia Energy lists the following expected negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples in the Phulbari Coal Project Area:

· Displacement and involuntary resettlement
· Loss of land, productive resources and assets
· Disrupted livelihoods
· Disrupted social networks and community bonds

All these negative impacts violate the rights of Indigenous Peoples according to specific articles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For example, Article 8 requires states to prevent or provide redress for any action that displaces Indigenous Peoples from their lands, territories or resources, or undermines their cultures through forced assimilation or integration.  The Phulbari project will forcibly displace thousands of Indigenous families. How will GCM comply with Article 8 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Article 32 recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent  “for any project affecting their lands or territories or other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”  Indigenous organizations in Bangladesh, most notably Jatiya Adivasi Parishad, have consistently, persistently and courageously opposed construction of the Phulbari mine for more than six years. In light of this opposition, how can GCM comply with Article 32 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Mr. Chairman, Jatiya Adivasi Parishad and independent researchers assert that 50,000 Indigenous people would be adversely affected by the Phulbari coal project. How is it possible for this project to proceed without violating their rights?

See http://www.mining.com/2011/12/06/anglo-american-oks-1-7-billion-queensland-project-to-triple-its-australia-met-coal-output/

See http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=141185&sn=Detail&pid=92730.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11348

copyright: Gaia Foundation

Gaia Foundation press release, Thursday 15th December 2011

Yesterday in Central London a silent protest took place outside the General Meeting of Shareholders of Australian mining company, Coal of Africa Ltd (CoAL). The protest was held in solidarity with the communities of the Limpopo Province, South Africa, who face untold ecological, social and economic damage to their ancestral homes should the mine go ahead.

The CoAL project which will affect this region is known as the Makhado Project. It is in addition to one other mine owned by the company in Limpopo Province, known as Vele, and a further two in the neighbouring Mpumalanga province. Yesterday’s meeting preceded CoAL’s Conditional Placing of Shares on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange plc, which is set to take place today.

Liz Hosken, founding director of The Gaia Foundation, took part in the protest: “We are here in support of the local communities and especially the Makadzhis - the guardians of the sacred sites and sacred lands of Venda in Limpopo Province. These are the spiritual leaders of the people whose responsibility it is to protect their ancestral homeland, which these coal-mining projects will destroy if  they go ahead. The company haven’t even carried out proper studies, but the one thing that they have admitted is that the underground water will be finished within two years. So there isn’t even enough water for their own projects; let alone for life itself. If there is no water, there is no life. This is truly Ecocide.”

Earlier this week twelve civil society groups and community members from the Limpopo Province sent a letter to over fifty shareholders and potential investors of Coal of Africa (CoAL) demanding that they reconsider their plans to support the company – and specifically the Makhado Project.

The letter set out a number of grave concerns relating to CoAL’s handling of the Makhado project and their neighbouring Vele mine. These included a flawed public participation process; failure to provide adequate answers to questions raised by the community; no water licence; and an insufficient Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan.

The letter states: “We have a responsibility to our ancestors and to our children to stop the destruction of our ancestral lands. You would do the same if someone wanted to mine your home. Please think about that”.

Notes to Editors:
Watch a 2-minute film about yesterday’s protest and what the mine will mean for the lives of the communities of Limpopo here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZG0Sc9NTRY&feature=youtu.be

For further information please contact Rowan Phillimore at The Gaia Foundation, London on +44 207 428 0054 or rowan@gaianet.org
or A.M. Mudau, Dzomo la Mupo, South Africa email: azwihangwisimosesm@yahoo.com or +27 79 412 2666

Image: Silent protest outside CoAL’s General Meeting of Shareholders which took place in Central London yesterday (Wednesday 14th December). Copyright, The Gaia Foundation.

Representatives from The Gaia Foundation, the London Mining Network and the general public took part in the peaceful protest.
The letter which was sent to CoAL shareholders and investors earlier this week has been based on evidence and analysis drawn from a research report commissioned by an alliance of groups, to look into the impacts of coal mining. The report Mine Not – Waste Not: A preliminary critique of aspects of the CoAL Makhado Colliery Project EIA and EMP is available on the following websites: The Gaia Foundation http://www.gaiafoundation.org and London Mining Network www.londonminingnetwork.org.

Coal of Africa’s website states today that, ‘subject to obtaining shareholder approval to issue the Conditional Placing Shares, the Company will apply for admission of the Conditional Placing Shares to trading or quotation and listing of the Conditional Placing Shares on the AIM market of London Stock Exchange plc (“AIM”) on 15 December 2011 and on the Main Board of JSE Limited (“JSE”) on 20 December 2011. Accordingly, the anticipated settlement date for the Conditional Placing Shares on AIM is 15 December 2011’. www.coalofafrica.com

The letter, which is endorsed by 12 local groups, has been sent to shareholders and potential investors including M & G Investments (part of Prudential), JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and ArcelorMittal, in advance of Coal of Africa’s General Meeting of Shareholders, which takes place in central London this Wednesday, 14th December.

The text of the letter is below.

For full Gaia Foundation press release, see http://www.gaiafoundation.org/content/mine-not-waste-not

The report Mine Not – Waste Not: A preliminary critique of aspects of the CoAL Makhado Colliery Project EIA and EMP is available at http://www.gaiafoundation.org/sites/default/files/MineNotWasteNot_december2011_0.pdf.

Open letter to Shareholders and Potential Investors of Coal of Africa Ltd (CoAL)

12th December 2011

We represent 12 local groups from Limpopo Province, South Africa, where Coal of Africa Ltd (CoAL) has two of its four coal mining projects, one being the Makhado Project.

Our alliance ranges from communities to farmers and ranchers of all cultures and incomes, representing thousands of people whose lives are at stake due to these projects in our province.

This letter outlines the reasons why we ask you NOT to invest in Coal of Africa Ltd (CoAL), or any of their projects, including Makhado Project. Investing in CoAL would create a social, ecological and economic disaster for those of us whose homes and livelihoods would be destroyed if these projects were to go ahead.  It is a flawed investment and totally unjust.

Our analysis is based on the research we commissioned from an international expert in the impacts of coal mining. The report, “Mine Not – Waste Not: A preliminary critique of aspects of the CoAL Makhado Colliery Project EIA and EMP” is widely available  together with two of the letters written by community groups to South African government ministries, clarifying their concerns and grievances regarding the Makhado Project.

These are some of the most critical reasons why you should NOT invest in Coal of Africa Makhado Project:

1. Refusal to provide vital information to affected parties – CoAL has refused to give affected parties the Environmental Management Programme or their prospecting permit. This is unlawful as this information must be available to the public.

2. Flawed public participation process – This process has been chaotic, ad hoc and inadequate, resulting in an incomplete application process.

3. Failure to give answers to vital questions – The concerns raised by the many affected parties have not been addressed, which is building growing discontent amongst the local communities and affected parties towards CoAL.

4. No water licence and not enough water in the area – The water studies for the project are incomplete, the water licence has not been granted and, by the company’s own admission, the underground water will be decimated by 2014. This is without taking into account the other mining project’s considerable water needs or the needs of the ecosystem and the communities who depend on it for their lives.  There is not enough water for one of CoAL’s projects, let alone the others. This defies logic.

5. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) incomplete and should therefore be rejected – By the company’s own admission, these fundamental documents are incomplete and CoAL needs more time to finalise them, for “a project of this magnitude and complexity”. None of the concerns raised by affected parties have been addressed or included in these documents. The required studies have not been completed and there are omissions of vital information and many speculative statements. Thus these documents should be rejected.  Anyway, the company has now run over the stipulated date for completion.

6. The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) deficient – This analysis makes unsubstantiated assumptions and does not take the severe ecological or socio- economic implications into account. Thus it completely underestimates the liabilities of the project.

7. A Bad Investment – Firstly, the communities and local groups are determined to stop this project because it will destroy their lives and livelihoods. Local resistance against the project is growing as more people come to terms with the impact that this will have upon them and their environment. Secondly, as is evident from the catalogue of omissions, CoAL is a young, inexperienced company, lacking in ability to deal with people, meet the necessary legal requirements or carry out the required research to assess the viability of a project.  This makes them a high-risk investment.

We pledge to stop the Makhado CoAL Project from going ahead. We alert you to the fact that what you might consider to be a profitable investment will cause the permanent destruction of our ancestral homes, ecosystems, livelihoods and the future options for our children. Without water there is no life. Without land we have no livelihoods.

We have a responsibility to our ancestors and to our children to stop the destruction of our ancestral lands. You would do the same if someone wanted to mine your home.  Please think about that.

Yours Sincerely

Signed by the following local groups from Limpopo Province:
Dzomo la Mupo
Mupo Foundation
Mudzi wa Vhurereli ha Vhavenda
Ndima Community Services
Thikho ya Mvelele
Vhembe Traditional Healers Forum
Cultural Biodiversity Group
Vhufa ha Vhangona
Vhembe Traditional Healers
Vhangona National Cultural Movement
Soutpansberg District Agricultural Union
Makhado Action Group
Replies to: A.M. Mudau, Dzomo la Mupo , email:azwihangwisimosesm@yahoo.com

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/30/coal-banks.

Report available at http://www.banktrack.org/download/bankrolling_climate_change/climatekillerbanks_final_0.pdf.

See
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11332&l=1