For example, the decision for underground mining at Barapukuria in north-west Bangladesh will have a major impact on the economy of the west zone, across the river Jamuna, and its natural environment. The proposed strip mining, or open-pit mining, at Phulbari, immediately south of Barapukuria, would mean that large areas will be removed from (three crop) food production, and thousands and thousands of families will lose their ancestral homes, depending on the extent of mining in future.

There are always some in government who can appreciate the views of the people. Chief among them is the energy advisor Mr. Tapan Chowdhury, who very categorically said in a round table meeting held on June 10: "Finalisation of the national coal policy is now in the final stage, and I hope it will be finalised by the next month. Experts would decide on the methodology for coal extraction from two choices -- open-pit and underground mining. No policy will be taken which will go against the interest of the people."

He also welcomed all to give their suggestions in formulating the coal and energy policies. He further added that the proposed coal policy would be integrated into the national energy policy.

This has prompted me to write. I regret that I could not attend the round table meeting. I knew, as everyone else did, that the advisor was unhappy about the steady deterioration in electricity supply. He might even be thinking: "Why can't Bangladeshis be even-handed in their policy?" He, perhaps, by now, knows that the omissions in the draft coal policy paper were deliberate. There have also been behind-the-scenes battles of words between those who favoured speaking in terms of realities and those who felt it would be politically unwise to invite controversy at a time when corruption revelations were everywhere.

Nevertheless, adequate energy supply is an essential pre-requisite for fulfilling the hope that millions of Bangladeshis will be able to live in reasonable material circumstances and dignity in this country in future.

Under the draft coal policy, 2007, the lessee may decide to extract all 1,460 million tons of coal within the next twenty years and export it. Incidentally, the value of the coal at today's international market price ($60 per metric) ton may be around $88 billion. This would be given away against a royalty payment of $7 billion. Isn't this highway robbery?

In addition, the environmental implications of decisions regarding underground or open-pit mining method for extraction of coal will need to be assessed in a proper manner. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report received on this particular proposal has been "managed," as it was in many such energy projects during 2001-06.

In fact, under the Mining Law, even the post of chief inspector of mines has not been filled, and standards have not been established at the national level or below. It is unlikely that the Bangladesh government will permit any outside interference in its sovereign prerogatives on legal or environmental grounds. The rest of the world has no alternative but to trust the good judgment of the actual owner of the resource -- the people.

Speaking of the 6% royalty, royalty payment was an old practice in case of oil and gas exploration conducted by British, American, or Dutch companies. After the formation of Opec, or even earlier, many oil producing countries rejected the royalty considerations and nationalised their oil production and marketing.

In this sub-continent, under British India, royalty payment for coal extraction was introduced under the Mining Act, 1923. In Bangladesh, with the formulation of the Petroleum Act, 1974, concession/royalty policy was revoked, and a new policy was formulated to establish the ownership of the people.

Under the old concession system, foreign companies were granted, in exchange for royalty payment, more or less complete ownership of mineral rights on vast tracts of land. Foreign companies determined the rate of development, and amount of production, from their "concessions," and also set the price.

In the same manner, for instance, under the open-pit mining Phulbari project, an unknown and inexperienced Asia Energy Corporation (AEC) managed to acquire the "assignment" right from BHP in 1998 (the year of their registration in Bangladesh). AEC's parent company was reportedly registered two years later. If this is true, the son was born two years before his parent.

Nevertheless, to restate what had been stated earlier regarding the provisions in Bangladesh constitution, the following may be viewed in the context of resource extraction:

First, the draft coal policy, once approved, would allow a local or foreign company to mine coal under the royalty basis. Other than the royalty measures, in all other options, ownership of the property would be retained. Royalty is an out-dated and exploitative system.

Second, the proposed policy is seen as a stand-close policy, having no connection with the National Energy Policy (NEP) 1995, or its updated version of July 2006, or even the latest updated version of June 2007. The National Energy Policy 1995/updated 2006, Power System Master Plan (PSMP) 1995, Gas Sector Master Plan (GSMP) 2006 have not been consulted. The proposed policy emphasises export.

Third, no domestic demand-supply exercise on coal has been incorporated, as had been done in all previous energy-related plans such as NEP, 1995, PSMP, 1995, or even GSMP, 2006. Unless total energy supply-demand balance is made, no production of coal can be agreed upon. In fact, the proposed coal policy is bound to have serious adverse impact on the mid to long term energy planning of the country.

Fourth, the energy demand supply already shows a serious deficit, which will be aggravated in the coming seven or eight years. With the exhaustion of natural gas by around 2015 (GSMP, 2006), coal must take its place at the earliest. But, the large-scale coal production plan: 20 million tons per year in the first ten years, and 40 million tons in the next ten years, and export of around 80 to 85 percent of the annual output, would simply bring disaster for the country. In fact, there would be hardly any coal left for domestic consumption in the long-run. What is the hurry? Why would the Ministry of Energy, or even the present people-supported caretaker government, take such a fancy to this export oriented coal policy?

Fifth, why does the ministry wish to create a situation that would help to exhaust the second commercial energy (coal) so quickly? is there a conspiracy behind to revive the coal policy and the Phulbari coal mining project? On every count, they go together. Approve one, the other one will survive. How could the ministry promote a case where lessee will also fix the price of coal as well as production?

Sixth, the expression that long-term sustainable energy security in the country is expected to be achieved through maximum recovery of coal at the quickest possible time (stated in the draft coal policy, 2007). One can easily assume such a production pattern will be followed to match the company's export plan, not to match the country's demand-supply plan.

Seventh, a pre-emptive decision on the method of mining as envisaged in the proposed policy is illegal. This is a sovereign right of the people as per law.

Eight, a list of companies who have been allocated some coal fields has been appended to the policy paper. This is a clean violation of norms and laws, and as such cannot be considered a policy document.

There was no apparent need to re-open the faulty and misleading draft coal policy. It should have been properly and adequately amended to reflect the wishes of the people. The thoroughly revised document must be made public so that national interest does not suffer.

Nuruddin Mahmud Kamal is former Chairman, Power Development Board.