Kolonel Brisk,
You have asked a very good question.
I have often posted articles on this thread that may seem indirectly connected with the Tiomin project. My objective has been to illustrate the fact that we are faced with a systemic problem with a root cause, and that regards natural resource management. By natural resources, I am referring to land, water, minerals, fossil fuels, biological resources etc. I am sure that if you ponder over it, you will not be able to think of anything that does not come from natural resources.
You will probably also concur that the Tiomin problem will not go away, simply by resolving it in isolation. The articles in the Standard that you referred us to, only serve to affirm this – that what we need is a much more effective solution, once and for all.
And without very much investigating, because the truth is very clear and easy to understand, we can all conclude we are living in world that is governed by an unfair trading system. The first ever study on global wealth, recently published in The Globe and Mail (Canada) on 5th December 2006, revealed the following shocking statistics:
· 1 per cent of the richest adults own 40 per cent of total global wealth
· 2 “ “ 51 “ “
· 5 “ “ 71 “ “
· 10 “ “ 85 “ “
Here’s the rest of the article…
The RICH really do own the WORLD
The Globe and Mail (Canada), 5th December 2006
For those who aren’t wealthy, it seems blindingly obvious that the rich own the world. Now, in a first ever study of global wealth, it’s clear just how unequitably the riches are spread around.
The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half of global household wealth, and almost all of the well-heeled live in North America, Europe and the richest Asia-Pacific countries.
While previous global surveys have studied income, this is the first wide-ranging analysis of the international distribution of wealth, defined as the value of physical and financial assets minus liabilities.
“We find there’s a lot of unequality, which is what we expected and is not that surprising,” said University of Western Ontario economist James Davies, who was a coauthor of the study, conducted by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. “But it turns out, the world distribution of wealth [assets minus debts] is more unequal than the world distribution of income.”
The United States is the richest country, with a mean wealth in the year 2000 of $144,000 (U.S.) per person. Canada has a mean wealth of $89,000 per person.
“Wealth in this sense represents the ownership of capital,” the study says. “While only one part of personal resources, capital is widely believed to have a disproportionate impact on household well-being and economic success, and more broadly on economic development and growth.”
The study estimates that the richest 1 per cent of adults alone owned 40 per cent of global assets in 2000, and that the richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of the world total.
By contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth.
The research finds that assets of $2,200 per adult places a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution.
To be among the richest 10 per cent of adults in the world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1 per cent. The latter figure, according to the study, is surprisingly high since it represents 37 million adults and is “therefore far from an exclusive club.”
Not surprisingly given its massive economic surge and the size of its population, China is a rising star and accounts for 8.8 per cent of world household wealth. At the same time, the distribution of wealth within China is getting more unequal.
“The growth of the Chinese economy, greater prosperity of people there, has got an equalizing impact on the world distribution of wealth, but there is increasing inequality within China,” Prof. Davies says
According to the study authors, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than its data reveal for the year 2000, and membership of its super-rich seems set to rise quickly in the next decade.
“Back in the year 2000, there were one or two billionaires in mainland China,” said Prof. Davies, citing a Forbes list of wealthiest people. “But the numbers have gone up to five or six by now, so it’s a period of rapid change.”
A small number of countries account for most of the wealthiest 10 per cent in the world. One-quarter are Americans and another 20 per cent are Japanese, who tend to have a very strong preference for liquid savings, according to the research.
The two countries feature even more strongly among the richest 1 per cent of individuals in the world, with 37 per cent living in the United States and 27 per cent in Japan.
Prof. Davies said he was particularly struck by one result of the study, which undermines the notion that poor people in low-income countries are mired in debt.
“It’s true that there are people heavily indebted in poor countries. But for a couple of reasons there is not that much use of debt and borrowing there as in high-income countries.
“The other aspect is that a lot of people in poor countries are leading very precarious lives. One way to react to that is to try to build up your assets as a buffer against things that can go wrong,” he said, giving as an example the hoarding of small quantities of gold.
Prof. Davies said the results of the research will provide a baseline for future studies on where the world is going.
“The trend over the last 20 to 25 years has likely been more concentration of wealth, simply because that’s been observed for income…Where we’re going in the future depends on a lot of things, for example on what happens to major economies like China and the evolution of wealth in those countries.”
---
Is this not sufficient evidence of globalization’s failure?
I believe that the only solution lies in a new international resource management protocol. (One which guarantees the people's sovereignity over their resources).
The following was presented to the Government of Canada, at The National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (regarding Extractive Industries in the developing world) in Toronto. Scroll to the section on Toronto (Sept 12, 13, 14), under Written submissions (World Economic Justice):
geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/current_discussions/csr-roundtables-en.aspOr directly to…
geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/library/CSR_Toronto_Submission_World_Economic_Justice.doc [Pages 4 – 5; Towards a New International Resource Management Order].
I hope this answers your question.
----
Meanwhile,
Date: Tue, 12 - Dec 2006 13:25:47 -0500 (EST)
DECEMBER 12, 2006 - 10:14 ET
Tiomin Delays the Construction of the Kwale Mineral Sands Project, Kenya
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Dec. 12, 2006) - Tiomin Resources Inc.
"Tiomin" or the "Company")(TSX:TIO) reports today that the construction of the Kwale mineral sands project (the "Project") will be delayed until the Government of Kenya ("GoK") resolves all land related issues, provides access to the project site and fulfills remaining conditions required by the contractual arrangements between Tiomin and the GoK, and the lenders to the Project.
The GoK is required pursuant to the contractual arrangements between the GoK and the Company to deliver the land required for the Project. On November 10, 2006, the GoK issued public notices in the Kenya Gazette stating its intention to acquire the land of the seven farmers that control eight plots of land located within the area of the Kwale Special Mining Lease who have not voluntarily accepted an offer from the GoK to acquire their land. The seven farmers, who are opposed to the GoK approved compensation agreement for the acquisition of their land, initiated court action against the GoK and Tiomin's subsidiary, Tiomin Kenya Limited ("TKL"). The seven farmers have claimed, amongst other things, that the Government does not have the constitutional power to order the compulsory acquisition of their land, subject to appropriate compensation. The parties failed to reach an out of court settlement. The judge's ruling on the seven farmers' claims is expected on or about December 21, 2006.
The Project's senior lenders have issued a letter to Tiomin stating that they would not be in a position to disburse funds for the Project if there are, at any time, incomplete legal processes that may impact title and access to the land required for the Project. Tiomin cannot predict when all of these legal issues will be resolved to the lenders' satisfaction. The continued lack of access to the Project site is preventing the Company from proceeding with the construction of the Project and it can no longer meet the previously published development schedule and budget.
It is a condition of the loan agreements provided to TKL that the GoK meet certain conditions (primarily related to delivery of the Project site) in order for Tiomin to drawdown in early February 2007. As of today, insufficient progress has been made by the GoK to satisfy such conditions, including a failure to gazette the Fiscal Agreement (signed in February 2005) for the Project, to negotiate acceptable port tariffs with TKL, to exempt the Project from certain stamp duty and withholding taxes, and to modify the existing mining lease to encompass all land required for the Project. Tiomin continues to work closely with the GoK to satisfy these conditions but intends to declare Force Majeure (as described in the Mining Lease issued to Tiomin by the GoK in July 2004) given its inability to obtain unrestricted access to the mining lease to initiate construction activities.
The Board of Tiomin is disappointed by this adverse turn of events and is reviewing its strategic options for the Project. This delay will cause Tiomin to reduce its personnel in Kenya to a minimum, delay the orders of long-lead items, and halt the construction of the port facility. Tiomin is committed to prudent financial management and will monitor the situation very closely.
Separately, on November 22, 2006, Tiomin was presented with the Development Funding Award at the Mines & Money 2006 International Conference in London for the most innovative mining project financing. In mid-2006, the company secured US$155 million in debt finance for its Kwale mineral sands project in Kenya (thereby fulfilling the conditions for the release of C$60 million in escrowed equity). Standard Chartered Bank, WestLB and Caterpillar Finance made US$80 million available after Tiomin secured US$40 million from the African Development Bank and US$35 million in subordinated debt from Jinchuan Group Ltd. Tiomin also secured a cost-overrun facility with Netherlands Development Finance.
Certain of the information contained in this news release constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to those respect to the prices of rutile, zircon, ilmenite, estimated future production, estimated costs of future production and the Company's sales policy, involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any forecast results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, the actual prices of rutile, zircon and ilmenite, the actual results of current exploration, development and mining activities, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be evaluated, as well as those factors disclosed in the Company's documents filed from time to time with the Ontario Securities Commission.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Tiomin Resources Inc.
Jean Charles Potvin
CEO
(416) 350-3779 ext. 227
or
Tiomin Resources Inc.
Robert Jackson
President
(416) 350-3779 ext. 230
or
Tiomin Resources Inc.
Laurie Gaborit
Investor Relations
(416) 350-3779 ext. 222
Email: lgaborit@tiomin.com
Website:
www.tiomin.com----
Here's something else that may be of interest:
Titanium Mining in Kenya: The Unresolved Questions
Press Release – National Council for NGO’S
10th July 2003
The National Council of NGO’S is the umbrella body representing all non-governmental organizations registered under the Non-governmental Organizations Coordination Act of 1990.
The Council has taken note of the media reports to the effect that the government, through the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Wildlife, has finally decided to grant the mining licence to M/s Tiomin Resources Inc. The sudden decision to issue the licence, without conclusively responding to the objections lodged by the Council and others, is inconsistent with the proclaimed policy of the new government to consult widely before decisions on major governance issues are made.
From the outset, the Council would like to reiterate that it supports the principle of sustainable development, that is to say, development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs. The Council is therefore not against exploitation of Kenya’s natural resources. Its concern is that such development should be environmentally sound and equitable, and truly benefit the people. For a country trying to emerge from a depressed economy, exploitation of resources such as titanium is one of the engines for the projected growth. However, this should not be attained in a manner that ensures the greatest economic value possible for the country. Is Ksh. 400 million per year necessarily the best value?
In this regard, the Council appreciates that one of the sticking issues that it has sought to address, namely the question of adequate compensation, has received attention. While the latest offer of Ksh. 80,000 per acre is a marked improvement on the earlier offer of Ksh. 9,000 per acre, we would like to point out that the issue of compensation was just one among many. Nevertheless the process attending decision making in this whole affair poses some questions of process and detail that still beg for attention.
The first is the inconclusive consultation process. The grant of the license has come at a time when the government had embraced the civil society as a valuable partner in development in our country. Besides, both the Mining Act and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act require public participation to attend decision making on the issues of this nature. Civil society had embarked on consultations with the Ministry as far back as the year 2000, when two roundtable discussions were held. More recently, two meetings were hosted by the Ministry on April 10 and 29, 2003 with senior officials of the Ministry. As one of the results of this working relationship, the civil society supported a government fact-finding mission to South Africa and agreed in principle to host joint public fora in Nairobi and Mombasa to discuss the titanium mining issue. We had hoped that this positive spirit would be sustained to the final conclusion of the matter.
In the course of this working relationship, and in appreciation of the need for the Kenyan people to discuss matters that affect their lives, the Ministry, through the office of Commissioner of Mines and Geology, published several public notices with the final notice appearing in the Nation of February 5, 2003 requiring any person with any objections to the grant of a special mining lease to M/S Tiomin Resources Inc. to file them with the Ministry within a period of 90 days. On the May 2, 2003, the Council submitted its objections to the Ministry receipt of which was acknowledged by a receiving stamp. The text of this objection was further made public through its publication in the Sunday Nation of May 18, 2003. The Council is aware that a number of its constituent members filed several objections as well.
It is regrettable that ever since the submission, no response has been received from the government with regard to the issues that were raised in the objections. We submit that Regulation 33 of the Mining Regulations, under which the notice was published, does not contemplate a mere formality of calling for objections without responding to the issues raised. Seen form the standpoint of the rules of natural justice, the said regulation calls for a proper hearing of all parties concerned prior to decision-making.
Furthermore, for public participation of citizens to be useful and meaningful, it must be effective participation. This can only happen if citizens and organizations are provided with all the necessary information to enable them to meaningfully engage in any consultations. This is because information raises the level of debate and influences opinion that might otherwise be compromised by mistrust and bias. We note that on a number of issues, such as the quantity, composition and quality of minerals available in the area, the only information available has been provided by M/s Tiomin Resources Inc. without independent verification by the government. Can we trust Tiomin Resources Inc. to take care of the interests of Kenyans? The government needs to practice transparency and release all the information that the public requires to gauge the fairness and prudence of this process.
Additionally, it was expected that the report of the fact-finding mission to South Africa would be released to the public. In the same vein, if there were negotiations between the government and M/s Tiomin Resources Inc. on the one hand and the local farmers on the other, the terms of these negotiations and the full agreements arrived at should have been made known to all stakeholders and the wider public.
The natural resources of Kenya belong to the people of Kenya. The government merely holds them in trust for the people. Indeed, this is the letter and the spirit of the draft Constitution of Kenya that is undergoing debate. For this reason, the government must have a clear position on how it intends to deal with Kenya’s vast natural resources. This must certainly mean re-looking at the country’s policies and laws on natural resources. Gladly, the government appreciates this fact. In the budget speech, for instance, the government informed Parliament that it intended to draft Kenya’s mining policy and come up with appropriate legislation. The review of the Ming Act, a colonial relic, is long overdue. This is also recognized in Kenya’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and the recently released Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation.
Secondly, while appreciating the potential benefits that may accrue from this venture, we must remember that African history is replete with instances where the discovery and exploitation of mineral resources has not been a blessing but a terrible curse that has haunted its citizenry. Most of the civil wars in African countries are waged over natural resources. The examples of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leonne, and the Niger Delta in Nigeria immediately come to mind. There is also the prevalent phenomenon of poverty amidst plent in the same countries, which is evidenced by amongst others, the struggles of the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta. Generally, the most-endowed countries are the most unstable and poor, due to mismanagement of such resources and corruption.
Thirdly, there are still a number of unanswered questions, which there is still ample opportunity to resolve prior to the actual grant of a licence and commencement of mining operations. Indeed, some of these constitute conditions that should be on the mining lease. The main ones are as follows
· Guarantees on the exploitation of underground water, which, even under current circumstances, is reflected in the Study on the National Water Master Plan to be dangerously low.
· The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) have been submitted. The Action Plan should also be submitted, and publicly reviewed, prior to the issuance of the EIA licence.
· The EIA and the EMP are still the subject of a pending lawsuit, with mandatory orders still in force against the Director-General of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA).
· There have still been no attempts to consider alternative loading to Shimoni and/or ways of mitigating the possible negative environmental impact on the Kisite/Mpunguti Marine Parks. The Council had proposed access through Kilindini by rail.
· Local value addition, which would create more jobs, technology transfers, and more national income, has also not been conclusively discussed. This is at the heart of maximizing economic value to the country.
· There is need to strike a balance between benefits tot the national economy and what goes into the local economy. The government intends to revive the Ramisi Sugar factory. Part of the land in which the minerals is found actually belongs to the company. Additionally, official records such as the Kwale District Development Plan show that this is the bread-basket of Kwale district. The government needs to balance these interests as part of the process of settling the Tiomin issue.
· There are still continuing and yet to be addressed concerns over radioactivity in the area. Clear explanation of mitigating measures, strict licensing conditions and monitoring frameworks would allay these fears.
· It still not clear where the affected people will be re-settled, with controversy already emerging over possible re-settlement in Kilifi. This begs the question whether a Re-settlement Action Plan (RAP) has been developed.
· The mining of titanium is not governed by the Mining Act alone. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act is the overall legislation in environmental matters and must therefore at all times be complied with. Did the National Environment Council (NEC) and the NEMA deliberate on this matter before the Ministry issued the statement of intent? Have all the requirements under that law been met?
The Council contends that the foregoing issues must not be seen in isolation but as important ingredients to the success of any mining venture in Kenya.
The Council strongly believes that the manner in which the titanium mining issue has been managed raises many questions, not just on the mining of titanium, but how the country wants to exploit other minerals, both existing and under exploration. Yet it is not too late in the day to take corrective measures. The Council will continue to monitor the situation in concert with its members, and to call upon the government to manage the issue accountably.
In the meantime, the Council calls upon the government to do the following:
· Observe all the laws that govern mining and provide safeguards to a clean and healthy environment for the people of Kwale and Kenyans generally.
· Open up the flow of information and engage in structured consultations with interested parties in order to conform to the public participation requirements of both the Mining Act and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act.
· Develop the conditions for licensing in a more participatory and transparent manner in order to provide stakeholders with sufficient information for continuing public participation by way of monitoring compliance with the laws of Kenya.
· Expeditiously establish the process of reviewing Kenya’s mining policy in order to provide clear direction on similar mineral exploitation ventures, which should include stakeholder participation and competitive determination of value, amongst other principles.
· Tale all necessary measures to safeguard the rights of affected citizens, beyond the payment of compensation, such as re-settlement, investment education, monitoring environmental degradation and enforcing compliance with the licence conditions.
Gichira Kibara
Chairman
The National Council of Non-governmental Organizations
----
Wanyee
(Ottawa, Canada)