What Makes the Mittal Agreement the Best Ever in Liberia?
Loco from Yekepa to Buchanan-
(Yekepa site)
January 1, 2006 - UNICCO Digest
By Yini Guva A. Sahn
The December 7, 2005 Analyst News article, Minister
Mason on Mittal Steel Prospects, in which Minister Mason indicated
that the Mittal Deal was the best Liberia had ever signed was very
interesting. The first question that came to my mind was whether previous
concession agreements for Bong Mining Company, Liberia Mining Company,
LAMCO and even Firestone were made available to the
public. Indeed Minister Mason’s statement opens up many unanswered
questions.
Background
In November 2004, I wrote an article, “Who
authorized the sale of the iron ore in Buchanan?”. I asked the
Liberian government to include some citizens of the natural resource
endowed counties of the country on the committee charged with selecting
investors to explore mineral resources in their respective counties.
Other important recommendations made included setting aside at least
25% of the proceeds from the sale of diamonds, iron ore, and other
natural resources for the development of the local communities. Minister
Mason assured Liberians that 21st century concession agreements would
be very transparent as indicated in the following statements:
"We will do all we can in our power to assure
the international community that this Ministry particularly, in
its effort to develop the minerals of this country, will do with
full transparency for the said resources to benefit the people of
Liberia". Ref: (Four
Compete for Mount Nimba - Govt. Assures Transparency, Resource Exploitation
Must Benefit Communities)
'We will make sure that only the best proposal
is accepted so that our country's rich iron ore reserves are exploited
in such a way that the revenues accrued will not only benefit the
country, but also 25% of the profits from the ore will be used for
developmental purposes of the existing communities…that is the demand
of government”. Ref: (LIBERIA:
Four multinationals bids to reopen Nimba iron ore mine)
With such genuine verbal assurance from a government Minister, we
thought our government was beginning to listen. But a few months later,
the Analyst Newspaper reported that Mittal Corporation was awarded
the deal to take over Mount Nimba. The deal was reportedly not transparent
and was seemingly influenced by kickbacks.
The problems with the Deal
The major problem with the deal is the deal itself.
First of all, it was not transparent. The contents of the so-called
best deal are only accessible to Minister Mason, Mittal Corporation
and members of the Mineral Technical Committee. Not even the people
of Bassa, Bong and Nimba whose land will be exploited know the details
of the deal. Here again, Minister Mason, the head of the pepper-bush-like
Committee didn’t keep his word that he would ensure that 21st century
concession agreements be TRANSPARENT.
Reactions to the Deal
Many ordinary citizens and leaders of Human Rights and other organizations
were not happy with the deal. Dr. Foday Kromah, a member of the Mineral
Technical Committee, referred to the Mittal deal as illegal. An
Unauthorized Memo from Harry Greaves to Gyude Bryant referred to the
deal as not being in the interest of the Liberian people.
The Analyst Newspaper in Liberia even gathered that only 2,000 jobs
would be created for Liberians as compared to over 20,000 overseas
jobs as result of this deal. People in high places were reportedly
bribed to get deal approved. Even the interim lawmakers reportedly
got their share to ratify the deal. What then is the best part of
this deal? Could it be the share of the bribe that the committee members
probably received?
Community Development Packages?
In the article under discussion, the minister said
that the deal had some community development implications for the
counties. That Nimba would get 50%, Bassa 33% and Bong 17%. This again
brings up more unanswered questions. What are the community development
programs is he talking about? Do the leaders of Bassa, Bong and Nimba
know? Were they part of the deal in the first place? The Liberian
people are interested in getting answers to these simple questions
because in this era, they do not want few people to make decisions
that will affect their lives. No one knows the needs of the people
of Bassa, Bong and Nimba better than the people of these counties.
Community development projects should not be proposed in the darkness
just as bribes are taken under the table. As such they do not represent
the interest of the Liberian people.
History
Since some past leaders of Liberia did not care much
for the country, they mortgaged the country’s natural resources to
multinational corporations. For instance, The Liberia American Swedish
Company, LAMCO, operated in Yekepa for years. Nimba County has nothing
tangible to show for the billions of dollars invested in its land.
Grand Bassa County also does not have much to show for over thirty
years of washing, shipping iron ore and other products through its
port.
The late Gabriel G. Farngalo, first superintendent
of Nimba County, did not even know all the details of the agreement
between LAMCO and Liberia. Gabriel was said to have
gone to his grave with anger at what President Tubman once told him.
Gabriel had suggested providing pipe-borne water for the locals in
Nimba since their major rivers and streams were being polluted as
a result of environmentally unfriendly mining. The late Tubman reportedly
yelled at Gabriel and said “provide pipe water for country people?”
The superintendent was not only surprised, but also disturbed by what
the president of the country said.
I am sure Gabriel would have been FIRED
had he asked for paving the road from Gompa city to Yekepa. Similarly,
there was unconfirmed legend that the people of Bong County wanted
the road from Kakata to Bong Mines paved but president Tubman told
them to give the money to the government. Bassa, Bomi, Bong, and Nimba
counties have nothing to show for investments made in their counties.
These counties were devastated, rivers polluted, wildlife and exotic
animal species made to migrate to other counties, if not, other countries.
With what we know from previous concession history in our counties,
it is about time that the mortgaging of Liberian resources come to
an end. Mr. Minister, why would you rate a deal that has been referred
to as not being in the interest of the Liberian people, the best?
What was your yardstick? A few green backs under the table?
But we in Nimba and Bassa do not only care for our
iron ore, gold, diamonds and other natural resources, but also for
our wildlife and environment. We are the custodians of those natural
resources and must be entitled to some portion of the benefits. Living
in a clean environment is enshrined as a legal right. Since government
officials continue to seek their own interests, we must look out for
ourselves. In so doing, we are again making our list of requests available
for the government’s consideration. Our interests lie in the future
of our counties, the welfare of its citizens and future generations.
Our list is growing:
- If the Mineral Technical Committee will remain alive after Ellen
takes over, representatives from these counties must be added on
to ensure transparency
.
- A well-balanced revenue sharing agreement must be made between
the Liberian government and these counties.
- Money should be set aside for the cleaning the environment, including
potentially polluted rivers. Plans should be made to relocate our
animal species that will be dislodged by mining activities.
- Piped-borne water must be provided for areas affected by mining.
The rivers are already polluted from previous mining. Our rivers
and creeks must be tested annually to access the level of potential
pollution and remedial actions must be taken by the company.
- Trees cut down during mining process must be replanted. Reforestation
project must cover all areas affected. Roads built in these counties
must be constructed properly: paved and the bridges made of concrete
not logs or planks that will rot after the company’s departure.
The company must maintain these roads until the end of their contract.
Maintenance will eventually be passed unto the Liberian government.
- Hospitals built by LAMCO in these counties should be revitalized
to meet the needs of the local people. More Liberian staff should
be employed, trained, to take over the affairs of such hospitals
in the future. Succession planning should be developed, in cases
where there is a scarcity of indigenous skills and capacity.
- The Vocational Training Center in Yekepa should be revived to
train more local technicians to enable them to gain employment locally.
Liberians should be given first priority not only for labor-intensive
jobs for but also managerial positions within the company. Competitive
wages must be paid to the local people.
- Other community development programs identified by the local
people must be supported by the company in addition to its own social
responsibility endeavors.
- Finally, the agreement signed and ratified by the corrupt interim
government must be revisited.
If we are to bring sustainable peace and economic
stability to Liberia, the citizens must in someway be part of all
decisions that directly or indirectly affect their lives, environment
and natural resources. And finally, the farce Mittal Deal must be
re-evaluated to ascertain that Liberians benefit from the investment.
A concession agreement signed amidst foul cries and reports of under
the table deals cannot be considered the best ever in Liberia.
About the Author:
_________________________________________
Yini Guva A. Sahn lives in Minneapolis with his family
and heads the Nimba Development Institute, - "www.nimbadev.org."
He believes that Liberia's legendary tradition of corruption can be
minimized only though education and taking punitive measures against
the corrupt. Liberia will never GROW if it continues
to reward corrupt officials with more opportunities. Yini Guva can
be reached at “yigasa@yahoo.com”.
Reference articles:
The Analyst Online Newspaper:
To submit story, please CLICK HERE.
submissions@unicco.org
All opinions expressed on this page are not necessarily those of
UNICCO.
© Copyright 2005 UNICCO DIGEST.
Subscribe to the Digest: Click
here to add your name to our list of subscribers |
