Open Letter from CEO of Herakles Farms in Response to Report On ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. Considering that the signed MOU was a personal mark of confidence to Dr. Timti Isidore (your consultant) by the local stakeholders intended to give SGSOC PLC a document to assist them negotiate with the government of Cameroon for an authorization to operate a plantation in Cameroon, and then come back to the local stakeholders for a more concrete agreement, We the chiefs and population of Nguti sub division, find it extremely inappropriate to deal with a potential partner who has systematically demonstrated bad faith and do hereby RENOUNCE the MEMORANDUM OF UNDRSTANDING (MOU) which embodied the NOTICE OF CONSENT signed between the chiefs and population of Nguti Sub Division and SGSOC PLC. We therefore withdraw all our support for this project until they will comply with our demands. This was signed by Hon Asu Mbanda George, MP for Nguti sub division, Tanyi George Ayompe, Mayor of Nguti, Chief Ehuom William Ngam, President of Nguti sub divisional Chiefs conference, Dr. Chief Atem Ebako, Think Tank Member, Napoleon Nyake, President NGUSCUDA, and 14 other signatories on the main attendance sheet, among which are the chiefs of Manyemen and Betock. At what point did you comply with these points and when did you address the issues raised to have won the support of pioneer ardent opponents like Dr. Chief Atem Ebako, who surrendered his personal lands to HF, Napoleon Nyake Besong and Chief Eben Nkongho of Manyemen? Should we go with the supported claim that you have bribed all these people to cross the carpet to your side without you giving anything to the communities? You prefer to deal with individuals than all parties. This is what is called “Divide and Rule”. On 28 June 2010, representatives of NGUSCUDA wrote you complaining of their patience being stretched beyond limits as SGSOC took advantage of the enthusiastic welcome given the project to go ahead seeking government approval to occupy lands in Nguti without having met with the most basic of the requirements agreed upon. This was signed by Hon Asu Mbanda and Napoleon Nyake. On 29 June 2010, Hon Asu Mbanda George wrote to the President of the Republic of Cameroon stating that the People of Nguti sub Division Objected the Attempt by SITHE GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE OILS CAMEROON (SGSOC PLC) to Irregularly Exploit the sub Divisional Land to the Detriment of the Population. The petition actually requested the President not to entertain any request from SGSOC PLC to obtain government approval to exploit land in Nguti. On 18 November 2010 Dr. Nzo-Nguty Bernard Wrote to the CEO of SGSOC copying the Prime Minister of Cameroon, Minister of Forestry and Wildlife, ordering an immediate suspension of the project by SGSOC Plantation in Nguti Sub Division, South West Region. Dr Nzo-Nguty condemned the obtaining of a false document from Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) Ekona on 20 November 2009 on the vegetation and land use in the Nguti- Manyemen-Toko area. The learned doctor said contrary to the cited document, most of the land in the area is made up of more than 80 percent primary forest with economically and medicinally very rich tree species. It is the problem of HF if it chooses to disregard the normal channels of dialogue and consensus, preferring to patronize individuals who cannot decide for whole communities. The selective choice of who to meet and where is for the convenience of bribing individuals. As HF is informed that Cameroon is a corrupt country, it resorts to massive corruption of individuals, instead of facing conventional ethical business practices. In this light HF refused to meet Nasako Bissingi of SEFE in the company of his
lawyer, cancelling the meeting when the activist insisted he will only meet them in the presence of his lawyer. Bruce claims that timber will be logged trimmed and surrendered to government for sale. But the Establishment Convention of 2009 states that 3.3 Incidental Rights (a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Convention, and only as necessary or desirable for the proper and efficient exercise of rights granted to Investor under Section 3.1, Investor and any Investor Party shall have the right: (iv) exclusively within the Production Area, to plant, cut and utilize timber, to the extent Investor and Investor party deem necessary for the construction and maintenance of Infrastructure, without the need to obtain any further authorization or pay any further fees, and for other Investor Activities within the Production Area, subject to Article 10; (v) exclusively, within the Production Area, to take and use, subject to any limitations pursuant to Article 10, free of charge (but not to sell to any other Person without the written approval of the Government), such water, earth, stones, rocks, sand, clay and gravel having no significant commercial mineral value other than as aggregate filler or other construction material, as Investor may consider necessary or useful for Investor Activities, without the need to obtain any further authorization or pay any further fees. Any activity conducted pursuant to this Section 3.3(a)(v) shall not be considered to be mining for purposes of any Law. So when were these clauses or the Establishment Convention revised? The Establishment Convention clearly demonstrates the sweeping powers investor seeks and the greed which would have resulted thereof. No wonder, the HF project has generated the most controversy even before it had been authorized to go ahead. Look at CARBON and the carbon credits that HF intends to reduce by clearing forests. HF forces government to surrender its rights and benefits to such a naturally generated product, (if environment was left intact) to investor in the following conflated clause. 4.11 Facilitation of Permits, Licenses, and Authorizations. 4.14 Carbon Credits Government undertakes to promptly provide to Investor all certificates, consents, authorizations, and other support reasonably requested by Investor in connection with the application for or monetization of the Credits. 13 Other Taxes and Payments 13.3 Carbon Credits Government acknowledges that to the extent that Investor realizes certified emission reduction credits or other carbon or carbon-equivalent emission reduction credits, or any corresponding monetary value or cost savings that results from greenhouse gas emission reductions, whether created by Investor, any Investor Party, any Project participant or any Third Party acting under the direction of Investor or any Investor Party (“Credits”) associated with the Investor Activities, Investor alone shall be entitled to all such Credits and all corresponding cost savings.
Page 1 and 2: Re: Cameroon: Open Letter from CEO
Page 3 and 4: economic might of the concession ar
Page 5 and 6: and flora. However, listening again
Page 7: All the Bassosi villages (11) under

Open Letter from CEO of Herakles Farms in Response to Report On ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?