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

See http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ggU5a5myh4ewO_qJ9P-8EasAa_YQ?docId=CNG.b16557cdf41a87e85d20681fb83362ab.31.

Read the Bankwatch report at http://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/spirited-away-mongolia-mining.pdf.

See the video at http://bankwatch.org/news-media/blog/video-spirited-away-mongolias-mining-boom-and-people-development-left-behind.

See http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20120124/news18.htm.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11462&l=1.

See http://westpapuamedia.info/2012/01/24/amungme-leader-warns-freeport-it-could-be-closed-down/.

Over the past 10 years a number of those who led the earlier unsuccessful struggle have asserted that the COC was based on unreliable, if not fraudulent data. They said the UK company should not be allowed to walk away from the project claiming it had done everything legal and necessary to clean up its mess.

In particular, the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council (WRPC), along with the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that one of the small rivers (“Stream C”), downstream of the mining operations, continued to contain unacceptably high levels of toxic metals. Now the state Department for Natural Resources (DNR) has issued a statement which appears to back this claim.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11433&l=1.

11 January 2012

The Saami communities of Sirges and Jåhkågaska have today submitted a complaint to the Swedish Minerals Inspectorate claiming that Beowulf Mining has allegedly conducted unauthorized exploration drilling in the Parkijaure 2 area, in Jokkmokk of northern Sweden, without a valid work plan. The company has already been reported by the Mining Inspectorate of Sweden to the Swedish Prosecution Authority for unauthorized exploration drilling in another nearby area – Kallak 1 – and the communities are now concerned that the company has once again performed exploration work without a valid work plan, this time in the Parkijaure 2 area.

“If it turns out that the company has undertaken exploration drilling without a valid work plan in in this area also, as many factors indicate, the company’s credibility as a professional company is seriously challenged,” says Jenny Karlsson Wik, Chief Lawyer at the Swedish Sami Association (SSR) and legal representative of the Saami communities.

Due to on-going issues with the company, the communities have now chosen to declare their opposition to Beowulf’s mining plans in an open letter to Beowulf’s management. As such, the communities will not be participating in the Environmental Impact Assessment. – “Any mining developments on our lands entail major negative impacts on the reindeer husbandry in the area, which is our traditional livelihood,” says Bengt-Åke Kuljok, Chairman of Sirges Saami community.

Beowulf has clearly demonstrated that they do not respect Saami rights. They have shown a blatant disregard for Swedish law and have spread misleading information to shareholders about the Saami communities’ involvement in the company’s plans. “There is absolutely no confidence in this company from the perspective of the Saami communities” concludes Jon – Mikko Länta, Chairman of Jåhkågaska tjiellde Saami community. SSR and the Sami communities have now turned to the Sami Council for support.

For further information contact: Jenny Karlsson Wik +46 72 202 12 00

——————–

Open Letter to Beowulf Mining Management and Board

11 January 2012

Jokkmokk  – The Saami communities of Sirges and Jåhkågaska write to you in regards to your company’s on-going exploration work in Jokkmokk municipality, northern Sweden, in central Saami reindeer herding areas. In recent months, Beowulf Mining has consistently demonstrated a lack of respect for our rights through careless behavior and lack of control over its own exploration activities. The communities are greatly concerned over the impacts of a future mine. Beowulf’s mining’s recent behavior has increased these concerns. The communities therefore hereby declare that we do not intend to co-operate with your company in any exploration or mining plans on our lands.

Jokkmokk has a large Saami population, and several Saami communities are based in the area. Plans for mining at Kallak and nearby areas will, without doubt, detrimentally affect existing Saami land uses in the municipality. This not only concerns those Saami communities in direct proximity to the proposed mining site, but also those communities along the proposed ore transportation routes. The Saami communities will not simply sit by and allow this to happen.

We, the Saami, are a part of the whole that makes up our living environment. Our living environment consists of the surrounding cultural landscape, history, reindeer, language, our natural resources, and our place in this whole. Our goal is to manage our living environment, and our cultural heritage, in a responsible manner, so that we can proudly hand over a sustainable reindeer husbandry and living Sami culture to our children and future generations.

Respectfully,

Jon-Mikko Länta Chairman, Jåhkågaska Saami Community

Bengt-Åke Kuljolk Chairman, Sirges Saami Community

—————————–

Dear Clive Sinclair-Poulton, CEO and Chairman of the Board, Beowulf Mining Plc.,

12 January  2011

The Saami Council writes to you in regards to our concerns over Beowulf Minings’ current exploration activities and planned mining activities in the Jokkmokk area, in the far north of Sweden. We would like to take the opportunity to highlight the human rights violations associated with the activities.

As part of our work, the Saami Council monitors mining, wind power, forestry and other industrial activities in the Saami areas, seeking to ensure that indigenous rights are respected. We have been contacted by one of our member organisations, SSR – the National Swedish Saami Association – and the Saami reindeer communities of Sirges and Jåhkågaska. The communities have recently expressed their firm opposition over Beowulf Minings mining and exploration plans in Jokkmokk in an open letter to your management on January 11th.

There are three points we generally like to raise with companies who may not be aware of their international obligations. The first concerns your company’s direct obligations in regards to international law, which affirms that indigenous peoples’ communities hold property rights to areas traditionally used. This position of international law has also been confirmed by Swedish law, most recently by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the so called Nordmaling Case. Consequently, no industrial activities are permitted in Saami reindeer herding communities’ traditional territories unless an agreement is reached with the relevant community. This property right is protected by the Swedish Constitution, as well as of Article 1 of Additional Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, in addition to other international legal instruments such as the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, the right to culture as enshrined e.g. in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 27, as interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee, establishes that the right to culture prohibits any activity that renders it seriously more difficult for indigenous individuals to continuously pursue their traditional livelihoods, such as reindeer husbandry.

The second point concerns the obligations your investors and partners have to ensure that they are not complicit in breaching indigenous rights. For instance, companies and investors involved in Beowulf’s projects risk breaching the Equator Principles (to which all reputable investments banks are now signatories), the OECD Guidelines (which apply to multinational enterprises operating in or from adhering countries) and the UN Global Compact. The General Policies of the OECD Guidelines underline, for example, that enterprises must contribute to economic, social and environmental progress with a view to achieving sustainable development, and respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host government’s international obligations and commitments. The Saami Council respectfully suggests that if Beowulf goes ahead with its plans, the company – and all those partners and financial institutions involved – are in breach of the General Policies of the OECD Guidelines. As such, we may have to consider contacting the British Government to submit a specific instance (i.e. complaint) through the UK OECD National Contact Point. The Saami Council has run similar successful campaigns in the past, targeting companies that do not respect Saami rights, by undertaking shareholder and investor dialogues, media campaigns and filing complaints with bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee. We will act in the same manner if the mining plans in the Jokkmokk area continue.

Thirdly, the Saami Council also wishes to draw your attention to the fact that the principal position of Swedish law, as well as relevant international legal norms, has not been incorporated into Swedish mining legislation. Foreign companies investing and operating in Sweden commonly place a high level of trust in Swedish public authorities and regulatory bodies. This trust is often misguided. The Swedish mineral law and permitting processes have been heavily criticised by the UN for excluding Saami communities and not respecting indigenous rights, most recently in UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples´ report on the Saami people. In other words, complying with Swedish law is in no way any guarantee for Beowulf Mining, or its investors and partners, that they are not in breach of human rights.

Turning more specifically to the case at hand, we have several serious concerns over your company’s current operations on Saami lands. First, your company’s proposed exploration and mining operations are located on vital reindeer herding pastures that are essential for the continued survival of traditional Saami livelihoods. The proposed mine site is also located across a crucial reindeer migration route. This migration route lies alongside the Parkijaure water reservoir for the nearby hydro-electric power station. The water reservoir has notoriously dangerous ice conditions and any exploration or mining activities in this area seriously threaten startling the reindeer off the migration route and onto the weak ice of the Parikijauri reservoir, posing enormous risks to both reindeer and reindeer herders.

Second, your company seems to have intentionally misled your shareholders on several points. You have personally stated to shareholders that the “the basic response [of the local people] has been positive”. This statement blatantly disregards the existence of significant protest by local Saami communities. Moreover, in regards to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, your company stated on November 2011 that the Saami communities were being paid to assist in the EIA. This is simply not true. There is no agreement between your company and the affected Saami communities. Moreover, the Saami communities have now unilaterally stated that they will not be participating in the EIA process. As you are aware, an EIA process requires documenting the local land uses, in particular the land uses of local Saami reindeer herding communities. We are curious as to how your company plan to undertake an EIA when the local Saami communities – the only people who can provide this information on local land uses – now refuse to participate in the EIA process? Moreover, we respectfully suggest that you will likely encounter difficult in commissioning a reputable environmental consultant to undertake an EIA if the Saami community is not willing to participate. Several Swedish environmental consultants now have a policy whereby they only undertake EIA work if the Saami community chooses to be involved.

Third, we are troubled over the fact that your company was caught drilling illegally without valid exploration work plans at Kallak 1, in Jokkmokk. Moreover, we are seriously alarmed over the recent allegation that this may not be an isolated incident, but that your company may in fact have also drilled illegally at Pakkijauri 2. We are concerned that if your company cannot deal with the simple bureaucratic process of an exploration work plan, you will be unable to manage the complex environmental and social impacts of a full-scale mine. We contend that these issues bring to light unprofessional practices and indicate that your company is not capable of operating in a responsible manner.

We hope that we have provided some clarity on the significance of the human rights breaches associated with the proposed mining activities of Beowulf Mining. Should you wish to receive any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours respectfully,

Mattias Åhrén Chief Lawyer Saami Council Telephone: +47 47 37 91 61 Email: mattias.ahren@saamicouncil.net

Cc: Board of Directors, Beowulf Mining

But the mine produced such a large proportion of the PNG Government’s income that it was not shut down.

Now OK Tedi Mining Ltd has, once again, had to pay compensation for continuing to pollute the environment at its operations in Papua New Guinea.

Grotesquely, the company has also been given an award by the government for “its contribution to PNG’s development and its compliance with the country’s laws”, as well as being a “Good Corporate Citizen”!

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11390.

See http://www.mining.com/2011/12/13/opponents-appeal-decision-to-permit-michigan-copper-mine/.

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

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?

Once this was pointed out to the Swedish Minerals Inspectorate by Saami representatives, the company had no choice but to stop drilling.

“The company’s work plan expired already in November 2010, yet, despite this, Beowulf has continued to drill. The company’s behavior is very strange and suggests a lack of respect for both Swedish law and for those communities affected by the drilling”, says Jenny Karlsson Wik, lawyer at the Swedish Saami Association and representative for Sirges and Jåhkågasska Saami communities.

While Beowulf presents itself to shareholders and investors as a serious company with an excellent knowledge of Swedish law and good relations with local people, this recent example serves a serious blow to Beowulf’s reputation.

“Our communities have no confidence at all in Beowulf”, says Mattias Pirak of the Jåhkågasska Saami community. “That Swedish state has had to go in and stop the company’s exploration drilling simply serves to highlight that this is not a trustworthy company. This could be a joke if it did not have such serious implications for our communities. Without a work plan we don’t know when or where the company is drilling, and we may have had reindeer in the area without knowing that the company was drilling there.”

This is not the first time the Saami communities have had problems with Beowulf. Recently at RMG Mining Investment Conference during November 2011 in Stockholm the company falsely claimed the Saami communities were involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

“Beowulf has unilaterally ceased all communication with the Saami communities. The company has outright lied to shareholders and told them we are assisting the company in the EIA. How is this possible when the company is not even in contact with us?” says Mattias Pirak, Jåhkågasska Saami community.

Contacts:
Jenny Wik Karlsson, jenny@sapmi.se, +46 72-202 12 00

The strike pitted a low-wage but determined and enlightened workforce against a global extractive resource company, US-based Freeport-McMoRan that has Grasberg at top of its massive revenue stream. (London-listed Rio Tinto has been indispensable to Freeport, acting as its critical 40% joint-venture partner at the mine for over a decade.)

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11374&l=1.

Saami areas in Sweden are currently experiencing an explosion in mining developments by both Scandinavian and foreign companies. Ironically, while these companies commonly market themselves to investors based on principles of Corporate Social Responsibility, many of them risk breaching human rights conventions, because they all too often fail to see the connection between the impacts of their activities and Saami rights.

The Saami Council, the National Swedish Saami Association, and individual Saami communities are in dialogue with several mining companies and their investors, including Scandinavian Resources and Beowulf Mining, to name just two. “These companies claim to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples, yet they seem to have no problem with performing intrusive exploration and mining activities in sensitive Saami reindeer herding areas”, says Mattias Åhrén, Head of Human Rights, at the Saami Council.

Many Saami communities are at a crisis point. “Reindeer herding, and our Saami culture, simply cannot tolerate any more industrial activities. We have very little lands left and the last of them are being taken by private mining companies”, says Mats Berg, on behalf of the Saami delegation to London, representing the Saami communities of Girjas, Laevas, Sirges and Lainiovuoma.

Saami organisations are also critical of Sweden’s failure to protect Saami rights.  “Sweden’s mining legislation does not provide any protection of Saami rights and the Swedish government has been critiqued numerous times by the UN for its failure to take action”, says Jörgen Jonsson, Chairman of the National Swedish Saami Association.

See Saami media release at http://saamiresources.org/2011/12/06/saami-communities-protest-in-london-over-mining/

Protesters’ account and comments at N30, corporate greed, Xstrata and the right to protest, http://occupylsx.org/?p=1755.

See also:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Protesters-storm-London-HQ-of-Xstrata-P4MS7?opendocument&src=rss

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15967800 and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/30/occupy-activists-xstrata-hq-london

Xstrata’s Tampakan mine attacked by community in Philippines

There has been another armed attack on Xstrata’s Tampakan mine, allegedly by “bandits” – actually community members who feel they have had no choice but to defend their lands.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11337&l=1 and scroll down for information on Tampakan.

Strike at Xstrata-Anglo American mine in Chile

The Collahuasi mine is 44% owned by Xstrata and 44% by Anglo American.

See http://www.bnamericas.com/news/mining/collahuasi-implements-contingency-plan-amidst-strike/276303551.