MINING: Solution or Illusion?

Destructive remains of abandoned copper mine site in Bagacay, Samar.

By Bob Acebedo

Axemen’s Return Order Ain’t Unjust or Immoral?

Secretary Michael Defensor of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) may have been doggedly miffed with the statement of Samar’s Catholic bishops bucking the government’s lifting of a 16-year-old logging ban in the province. In a press conference held last November 11 at the compound of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines in Intramuros, Manila, Bishops Leonardo Medroso of the Diocese of Borongan, Emmanuel Trance of the Diocese of Catarman, Jose Palma of the Diocese of Calbayog and Angel Hobayan, bishop emeritus of Catarman, have assailed DENR’s August 15 order allowing the San Jose Timber Corporation, owned by Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, to log within a 95,770-hectare area that straddles nature parks in protected zones constituting the 120,000-hectare Samar Integrated Forest Reserve (SIFR) and Samar Island Natural Park (SINP) of old growth forest and watershed. “To allow the resumption of commercial logging in these protected areas is to make a mockery of the purposes and goals of SIFR and SINP,” the bishops said.

“To say that Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and San Jose Timber Corporation have prior rights to the old growth forest is a legal assertion. It does not reflect true justice or morality. In truth, the people of Samar have more prior rights than either,” the bishops said in their statement which was read by Fr. Euly Belizar Jr., spokesperson of the Diocese of Borongan.

But no, Secretary Defensor cannot simply acquiesce to the bishops’ protestations hook, line, and sinker. Defensor snapped back in no time to negate two points about his August 15 order: first, that it did not prescribe any lifting of logging moratorium in Samar, and; second, that it was nothing unjust or immoral. “What we did was just recognize that the moratorium has lapsed. It was an issue that the previous secretaries of the DENR never faced squarely. What was immoral and unjust in that?” fumed Defensor.

But—more than likewise readily acquiescing Defensor’s defense hook, line, and sinker—a candid valuation of the issue inescapably unmasks the DENR Secretary’s repartee to likely hew on doublespeak, if not on fallacious underpinnings, than being plausible.

On his first point, Defensor reasons out that as the moratorium was only for four months, from February to May 1989, it has long lapsed and hence he merely recognized Enrile’s company’s rights to the concession. Ergo, there was no lifting of the moratorium at all as the same has already lapsed. But, verily, sans the technical contraptions of moratorium lifting or lapse, Defensor’s August 15 order clearly adduces one and the same terminus ad quo or effect: the axemen’s return or resumption of Enrile’s SJTC’s logging operation. It cannot be said hence that Defensor’s August 15 order stopped short merely at recognizing the moratorium lapse and not the axemen’s return or cutting of trees—for, to intend the “immediate end” of an act is but likewise intending its “consequent end.” In fact, contrary to Defensor’s “mere recognition of moratorium lapse,” his August 15 order evidently provides more so for an extension of SJTC’s permit for 16 more years. “San Jose Timber Corporation is hereby allowed to pursue its rights and activities under its TLA No. 118 until 30 June 2007, with an extension of the period of said TLA equivalent to the time that elapsed from 31 May 1989 until promulgation of this Order (underscoring mine),” stated the DENR order.

Defensor’s second point—that his August 15 order is devoid of injustice or immorality—inevitably begs the questions: “If Defensor’s order indeed consequently prescribes the resumption of logging in Samar, then what injustice or immorality does it contrive?”; “Isn’t that justice likewise behooves to equally recognize or grant SJTC’s concession rights too?”

The resumption of logging, or “wanton rape of Samar’s forests”, cannot be said to be lacking in unjust or immoral consequences as, on historical reckoning, Samar’s experience has been undeniably more scarring than not: the great flood of 1989 that inundated the province’s rice granary and causing the loss of 100 human lives and destruction of millions worth of crops and livelihood. It then was, and now the resumption of logging, the bishops of Samar said in their statement, threatens the survival of at least 80% of Samar’s old growth forest and watershed, thereby endangering or jeopardizing the livelihood of the island’s already impoverished populace. Do these—then, now, and would-be—consequences not pose as unjust or immoral vis-à-vis the rights, lives, and livelihood of the people of Samar?

That Defensor’s order is not unjust or immoral because it simply recognized SJTC’s prior concession rights logically skews the broader meaning of justice. Unmistakably, between the private rights of SJTC and the inalienable collective rights of the people of Samar, the pre-eminence of the latter certainly cannot be doubted. “If anybody’s rights have ever been trespassed and for which justice is required, it is none other than the very people who, even today, continue to suffer grievously from the criminal by-products of large-scale logging,” notes bishop Emmanuel Trance of Catarman in his pastoral letter issued last October 24. This is clearly consonant to the Church’s teachings on “universal destination of goods” which exhorts the truth that the goods of the earth are meant for all (Church in the Modern World #69, Populorum Progressio #69). Besides, also, didn’t 104 countries (not excluding the Philippines) in the Jakarta Declaration of 1979 underscore that “forests are for people”?

Yes, Defensor’s August 15 order, the bishops conceded, may be free from legal infirmity—to which the good Secretary curtly (as it were) retorted, “I’d like to thank the bishops for saying that I did nothing illegal.”

But then, Secretary Defensor is apparently yet far from being enlightened, “But I’d like to know what immorality and what injustice I’ve committed.” Pray so, whence the spirit cometh. (Malou Mahilum)

ENERGY: Halt the killer fumes

The country needs energy to drive our economy. However, the rapid ill-effect of rapid progress to the environment is evident.

No doubt, we need energy for everything—driving our cars, cooking many others. The problem is when producing this energy also releases a staggering amount of carbon dioxide and other gasses—disrupting the climate’s patterns (consider hurricanes in Cebu and El Niño every other year). In metro manila alone, about 6,000 tons of pollutants are emitted by two to three million vehicles, hundreds of factories, and household daily.

Carbon Dioxide is released during the burning of fossil fuels. Methane is discharged from livestock waste. Nitrous Oxide is released during agricultural and industrial processes. Hexafluorocarbon is released from various industrial processes such as the production of fertilizer or aluminum. “Coal power plants, in particular, are considered the dirtiest source of energy, as they emit not only soot, but also mercury, arsenic, lead, and other lethal substances that can enter our bloodstream.”

Climate change is the world’s greatest environmental threat of the 21st Century. However, many people know little about the threat posed by climate change. Scientific studies revealed that with the rising temperatures, extreme weather events such as storms and droughts are imminent.

According to the Environmental Legal Assistance Center, clean, renewable energy sources like hydroelectric plants, wind farms, and solar panels are the best solution, producing energy without actually consuming any resources. “Because of this, they don’t emit pollutants as byproducts and can be used again and again. The initial cost may be great, but in exchange for normal weather, clean air and longer lives.”

MINERALS: A country for sale

Last October 11, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo welcomed various mining investors as the country hosted The Asia-Pacific Mining Conference and Exhibition 2005, opening up the country’s mineral wealth to mining despite the alarming number of communities suffering in different parts of the Philippines.

Mining—the way it is done in our country and in other third world countries— ranks among the most ominous industries. Not only does it ruin forests, agricultural lands and marine resources, it also brings with it grave human rights violations and the eventual disintegration of the affected communities’ traditional way of life. These negative impacts mostly affected various sector: indigenous people, peasants, children and mining workers—who have continually agonized from underdevelopment.

Because of the government’s pro-mining approach, more and more ecologically significant areas are being offered to mining. Even sites supposedly protected by laws from caustic projects, such as Palawan and Samar Island, have become primary targets of mining companies, some of which have notorious track records against human and environmental prerogative.

Sadly, the Arroyo administration has failed wretchedly in handling environment protection and natural resource management—the array of environmental disasters in Luzon and Mindanao already causing havoc, poisoning rivers, seas and people with mercury and cyanide. It also failed to dispense justice and rehabilitation for the innumerable victims of the Marcopper—Canadian Placer Dome in 1996 which was the worst among the mining disasters the country ever had: mine waste burst through the holding area and left the local river and countryside heavily polluted.

Referring to the government’s aggressiveness of promoting mining, environmental analyst David Wurfel said that the country is “facing dangers today several times greater than the dangers we faced the in the past.”

FORESTRY: The vanishing forest

Hardly any countries in the world were originally more thoroughly covered by rain forest than the Philippines.

A few hundred years ago, at least 95 percent of the Philippines was covered by rain forest. At the end of more than 300 years of Spanish colonial rule, rain forest still covered about 70 percent of the Philippines. Some islands had been heavily deforested, while others remained nearly untouched. In 1992, however, old-growth rain forest had declined to 8.6 percent— probably the most rapid decline recorded in the world in less than a century.

The Philippines is on the world map as a megadiversity spot, because it is one of the 17 countries where 60 to 80% of the entire world’s species can be found. The extent of forest destruction is probably the reason why the Philippines is ranked as having the most severely endangered mammal and bird faunas in the world.

Forests have blatantly and negatively evolved. The result? Flashfloods and landslides during heavy storms. Not to mention, the innumerable victims of the Southern Leyte mudslides in 2003 and the Aurora-Quezon flashfloods in 2004 brought by relentless logging. Deforestation is also responsible for the increasing floods in the country, as well as massive erosion.

MARINE RESOURCES: One of the richest in the world

The Philippines is located in the Indo-West Pacific Region which has been recognized as the world’s highest marine biodiversity. The coral reef area particularly in our country, Malaysia and Indonesia called “the coral triangle”, is considered the core of the most biologically diverse on the planet and make up some 45 percent of the global total. At least 2,000 fish species are found in the Philippines.

At present, there are around 80 million Filipinos nationwide. We may not realize this but most of us are actually living along the coast in which their living derive, relying on healthy coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds to survive. Deep sea fishery are reportedly not yet at the forefront of extinction but early measures are necessary to enhance the country’s effort to manage its aquatic resources not just for the benefit of local communities but also to maintain the ecological balance. (Roy Q. Lagarde)

What with the irreversible social and environmental costs, the Arroyo government perilously guns for ‘gold’ or economic salvation in mining.

With the Arroyo administration’s calibrated policy on the revitalization of mining, the Philippines still stands to live up to its reputation as the 5th most mineralized country in the world. And far from abating the sordid, and irreversible, legacy of environmental destruction, social displacement and other correlative grim consequences brought by the countless years of profligate mining and quarrying operations, transnational corporations (TNCs) are as fervidly posed to scrounge, fleece—or even sack up to the tilt—at the country’s rich mineral resources, thanks to Mrs. Arroyo’s Mining Act of 1995, or Republic act 7942 (which she authored erstwhile as Senator) and Minerals Action Plan (MAP), a policy document she issued immediately after the Supreme Court reversed its ruling on the Mining Act only last December 2004.

That TNCs are clambering to seize mining investments in the Philippines is no doubt because of the country’s unrefuted track record in mineral production, dating back to pre-Spanish era, which speaks of its bountiful mineral wealth bestowed by nature. This is well confirmed and recognized by many geologists not only in the Asia-Pacific region but also in many parts of the world. Unassumingly, records and figures are enticing enough to account for the increasing investment interest in the Philippines.

The 2004 Mining dossier published by the National Secretariat for Social Action, Justice and Peace of the Catholic Bishops conference of the Philippines reports that “based on past production and defined resources, the Philippine mineral endowment is second in the world for gold and third for copper.” The Philippines has reserves of about 13 known metallic and 29 non-metallic minerals. In 1996, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Department of environment and Natural Resources recorded a total of 7.1 billion metric tons of non-metallic reserves.

Copper dominates the metallic reserves, comprising 4.8 billion tons or 67.5% of the total. Limestone, the largest non-metallic mineral deposit reported, accounts for 57% of the total non-metallic reserves, or 29 billion metric tons, followed by marble that accounts for 16.7% or 8.5 billion metric tons.

Gold can be found throughout the country in the form of lode or placer deposit. The principal gold-producing districts are Baguio, Paracale (Camarines Norte), Masbate, Surigao, and Masara (Davao del Norte). Silver is a by-product of copper and gold mining.

The bulk of chromite deposits in the country are found in Zambales Province and Dinagat Island, off northeastern Mindanao. The chromite deposit in Coto, Zambales is believed to be the largest known deposit of refractory (or ability of a material to resist high temperatures) chromite in the whole world.

The country is also greatly endowed with nickel-rich deposits of laterites (residual products of rock decay in red color with high content in oxides of iron and hydroxide of aluminum) which are currently the source of its nickel export. The vast laterite deposits of Surigao in northeastern Mindanao were first reported in 1912, but were not exploited until 1975.

Other metallic mineral deposits such as platinum, iron, manganese, lead, zinc, molybdenum, mercury, and aluminum also exist in the Philippines, dispersed throughout favorable geological terrain.

Non-metallic mineral deposits such as coal, fertilizer, salt, sand and gravel, marble, clay, limestone, feldspar, dolomite, magnesite, phosphate rock, guano, sulfur, industrial gemstone and decorative minerals also abound in the country. These are major important sources of raw materials for construction, agriculture, and power generation.

Gunning for ‘Gold’ in Mining

On cursory blush, from R. A. 7942 or Mining Act of 1995 to President Arroyo’s Executive Order 270 and Minerals Action Plan (MAP) the government has been doggedly pursuing for the full liberalization of the country’s mining sector. The patent premise, flaunted always by the government, is to usher in foreign investments and thereby purportedly gain economic benefits, especially for the Arroyo administration which has been plagued with fiscal woes, ballooning debts, widening budget deficits, falling tax collection, and the wrenching economic whammy due to unabated sky-high oil prices, not to mention the worsening credibility crisis.

However, a candid reckoning cannot simply escape some doubts about the government’s calibrated policy on mining more than its touted economic intentions, and may as well skip the far more plausible reasons or factors attendant to the unperturbed dash for mining liberalization.

Authored by then Senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Mining Act of 1995 or R..A. 7942 was signed into law by then President Fidel V. Ramos on March 3, 1995, allowing the government to enter into Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAAs) with mining companies in the extraction of mineral resources. Verily, back then, the Ramos administration was not as plagued with debilitating fiscal or economic woes as with the current Arroyo government. Hence, more than the domestic economic condition, the transnational pressure of globalization precipitated R.A. 7942. For the World Bank, which pushed for the passage of the law, the Philippines should export its natural resources through foreign companies to be able to pay its debts. Consistently, thus, in its Country Assistance Strategy for the Philippines 2003-2005, the World Bank, not stopping short of urging the Philippines government to aggressively explore the export potential of the mining sector, categorically requires even more the government to resolve “obstacles to 100 percent foreign ownership of mines.”

Evidently, however, the Constitutional provision regulating foreign ownership of Philippine-based businesses at 40% maximum collides with the World Bank requisite. Not surprisingly so, the rather compatible “Cha-cha” duo, Fidel Ramos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, have relentlessly been dancing to the tune of Charter change—their grand acquiescence to the prescriptions of multilateral aid agencies that dictate the liberalization of vital industries.

Notwithstanding the goal of “economic development” through mining investments of R.A. 7942 and the hegemonic pressures by World Bank and WTO, the supreme court, in its erstwhile celebrated ruling of January 27, 2004, upheld the Constitution and struck down several provisions of 1995 Mining Act or R.A. 7942 and DAO (Implementing rules and Regulations of R.A. 7942 that allow the execution of service contracts with foreign-owned corporations for the exploration, development, exploitation and use of the country’s mineral resources). In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that foreign-led mining is tantamount to foreign ownership and control of the country’s resources and is violative of the Constitution. The ruling magnified the lines between those who support mining and those who oppose it. As civil society and pro-environment groups celebrated with relief, the mining industry and the government fumed. The industry vilified the Supreme Court for its “excessive meddling” in economic matters. The government lamented over the purported loss of investment potential in mining.

Unbudged by the Supreme Court ruling, President Arroyo remained even more resolved to rescue the mining export industry—the one sector she has promoted for years. Apart from ordering the Solicitor General to contest the supreme Court decision, and her administration meanwhile besieged by crippling fiscal woes and budget deficits, Mrs. Arroyo desperately sought for investments in the mining sector—even as earlier in late 2003 she had already proven she can walk the talk by declaring a policy shift on mining from “tolerance” to full “promotion”—by yet issuing Executive Order 270 or the national Policy agenda on Revitalizing Mining in the Philippines on January 2004, which delivered the impetus to open new mines, expand existing ones and resurrect others that have died. Consonant to E.O. 270, the government crafted the Minerals Action Plan for minerals development providing the “strategic directions for the exploration, development and utilization of the country’s mineral resources.” The MAP is basically a policy document taken entirely from the Mining Act, but only added few provisions on “social and environmental protection” to make it appear that large-scale mining can also be “responsible and sustainable.”

Finally, President Arroyo completely slugged it out with her resolute propensity on mining, or her “gunning for gold,” when last December 2004 the Supreme Court, apparently convinced of the mining industry’s arguments of “economic benefits for the majority,” delivered the final blow by reversing its previous ruling and upholding the 1995 Mining Act. The Supreme Court decision eliminated the last obstacle, save alone the Constitution, to the full liberalization of the country’s mining sector.

Conspicuously, the government’s calibrated policy on mining revitalization are both premised on the same argument—to cough up investments purportedly beneficial to the country’s ailing economy.

Bagacay (Samar) post-mining legacy: deforestation, desertification, water resource degradation, crop damages, siltation, and what-ought-not.

Even as early as February this year the Arroyo government had claimed that the country’s total mineral potential worth $840 billion is enough to wipe off the country’s debts. Figures culled from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) reveal that the government hopes to generate in the next ten years some $6-$7 billion potential investments, $800 million exports, $490 million tax revenues (if without incentives), aside from providing more than 200,000 jobs.

Already, as of late, the government reported that mining investments in January to September 2005 soared to $345 million, poured in by 23 mining firms led by Coral Bay (Palawan Nickel project), Lafayette Philippines Inc. (Rapu-Rapu Polymetalliic Project), Australasian Philippines Mining Inc. (Dipidio Copper-Gold Project), TVI Resources (Canatuan Gold Project), Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. (Far East Gold Project), Filmenera Resources (Masbate Gold Project), and Eagle Cement Corp. (Akle Cement Project).

Scarring Experience: Social-Environmental Costs and Corollary Problems

No denying, the country’s experience as the world’s 5th most mineralized country has been more debilitating, if scarring, than not. Despite the conspicuously thundering cases of mining firms violating environmental standards—not to exclude transgressing indigenous people’s rights and culture, and labor regulations—which have wrought destruction and other irreversible consequences to the environment and the local communities, the government has remained unperturbed, if not unbudged, and more so has even calibrated its revitalizations agenda for mining to bag for more investments.

The mining process has always been equated with environmental destruction—deforestation, slope destabilization, soil erosion, desertification, water resource degradation, defertilization, crop damages, siltation, alteration of terrain and sea-bottom topography, increased water turbidity and air pollution. Mining operations in the Philippines have damaged forests, agricultural lands, river systems and marine resources, displacing thousands of indigenous peoples and upland dwellers, peasants and fisherfolk.

It is interesting to note that according to a recent World Bank study called “Philippine Environment Monitor 2004–Assessing Progress,” the Philippines “loses over 2 billion dollars annually due to environmental degradation.” The World Bank estimate only includes damage from water pollution, mismanagement of fishery resources, and air pollution in four urban centers—excluding yet the social costs and the loss of quality of life. Moreover, according to the World Bank, landslides and flashfloods cost the country roughly 15 billion pesos annually. Mining operations, which require clearing acres of forests, contribute to such catastrophes.

There’s no arguing, furthermore, that more than the social and ecological costs, mining undeniably whips up an irreversible depletion or exhaustion of the country’s mineral wealth. Once minerals are unearthed they can only be replenished in another million years, so say geologists. The February 8, 2005 statement of the Ecumenical Bishops Forum aptly expressed, “Consider (too), that what has been mined and what has been destroyed to allow for mining can never be restored.” A Manila Times columnist likewise echoes a similar sentiment, “While mining sites can be rehabilitated there is no way of restoring a mountain to its pre-mining glory.”

The pastoral statement of the Episcopal commission on Social Action, Justice and Peace of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines issued last March 10 comprehensively identifies the harsh consequences, or “scarring experience,” of mining in the country, “Mining has given the Philippines a scarring experience: mine tailings flooding villages and killing individuals, depletion of natural resources, ill effects on health, fabricated social acceptability, polarization among locals, unjust labor practices, delays in or non-payment of taxes due the local government, abandoned mines that continue to harm the environment and inhabitants long after operations have ceased, displacement of indigenous communities, unfulfilled promises of community development, militarization, intimidation and threats.”

In particular, not only a few local communities and provinces in the country are indeed afflicted with such “scarring experience” caused by mining.

In 1996, the Marcopper Mining Corporation (owned by Canadian Placer Dome) in Marinduque spilled four million tons of waste that killed the nearby Boac River.

In Benguet, mill outlet and mine tailings dam of the Victoria Gold Project of Lepanto Consiolidated Mining Co. reportedly yielded lead, mercury and cyanide levels above the maximum safety levels set by the DENR and the US Environmental Protection Agency, according to a recent independent study.

Philex Mining Corporation in Tublay, Benguet, according to independent think-tank IBON Foundation, abandoned its pit mines without rehabilitating the water sources in the area, and also reportedly dumped mine wastes into the Bued River, endangering the lives, livelihood and property of the residents.

In Samar, the Catholic hierarchy of the Diocese of Borongan, in its pastoral statement, have assailed the mining activities in the province, “The dead river of Taft, Eastern Samar, the dying environs around Manicani Island and some parts of Homonhon Island cry out an appeal to us that mining operations be stopped and shut down altogether.”

Not only the scarring experience of environmental destruction but, of equal concern too, are the strident cases of rights violations, militarization, intimidation and threats. In Canatuan, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte where the Canadian firm Toronto Ventures Inc. (TVI) operates the Canatuan Gold Project, the local Subanon tribes have complained of deceptive tactics used by the company to avail of their consent, as well as harassment from military and paramilitary elements assigned to guard the TVI premises. The Bishop of Dipolog in Zamboanga del Norte, Bishop Jose Manguiran, in a statement published in August 2005 issue of IMPACT, deplored the affliction, or scarring experience, of the Subanon people, “The operations of the company have already caused grave environmental damage to an important watershed. The mountain is also a sacred place to the Subanon and it has been violated. The Subanon have suffered abuses at the hands of the company guards. Their community has been disrupted and divided against itself to serve the interests of the company. A group of respected elders of the Subanon have condemned efforts to falsely project some supporters of the company as the leaders of the community while the real traditional leader of the local Subanon, Timuay Jose Anoy, is not even free to live in his home or enter his ancestral land.”

There is also the corollary problem of fabricated “social acceptability” which has likewise bred other problematic consequences as division or polarization among local stakeholders, bribery, corruption, trickery or deceptive procedures, intimidation and threats. “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” (FPIC) of the local community and other stakeholders is a mandatory requirement included in the preparation and compliance of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to ascertain the “social acceptability” of the mining project in mine sites. The FPIC is acquired or duly complied through a “scooping process,” under which a supposedly thorough consultation among various local stakeholders—the local community or indigenous peoples, local government units, Church and non-government organizations, mining project proponent/s, and the DENR. During the community consultation, the mining project proponent/s and their consultant/s are required, according to government procedural standards, to present the mining project’s “mitigating measures” detailing the proponent’s action plan or strategies to lessen or combat the adverse impact—social, environmental, and others—of mining operation. These “mitigating measures,” and along with the FPIC document are supposedly included in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) required for submission to the DENR to secure the appropriate mining permits.

Marcopper Mining Corporation spilled four million tons of waste that killed nearby Boac River in Marinduque.

On first blush, the government’s mandated standards required for mining operations appear to be in place. But, gleaned from actual experience, according to NGOs and people’s organizations, the situation in the country contrives more than meets the eye. Obviously, mining project proponents or investors, flanked by their claque of local accomplices—from the local government units or from the DENR—are simply more cunning, if unscrupulous, than the local indigenous people and residents. Mining firms, according to NGOs and people’s organizations, often resort to bribery, trickery, and intimidation in order to obtain the required FPIC.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) document that is submitted by the mining project proponent does not at all show any plausible proof or document reflecting the “free, prior and informed consent” of the local residents except their signatures in the attendance sheet from the community consultative meeting. Joyce Palacol, Ecology Program Officer of CBCP’s National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA), aptly affirms, “I have reviewed not only a few EIA documents and I have never seen a single document showing any proof of acceptability except their signatures in the attendance sheet.”

“In reality, obtaining the consent of the stakeholders through the scooping process is not as effective as it is. The provisions provided for in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) system has been circumvented through bribery, deception and intimidation. Project proponent normally conducts consultative meetings with stakeholders and the attendance sheet obtained from such meetings is used as attachment to the EIA document supposedly reflecting the consent. Affixing signature on the attendance sheet however does not reflect the agreement or disagreement of the individual participants,” Palacol added.

Worse yet, even signatures in the attendance sheet are illicitly obtained, in some cases, through bribery, trickery, or threat, according to an independent pro-environment group. “The situation which is the current norm in the Philippines is that virtually in all cases, mining companies can and do claim to have secured FPIC, while affected communities, or at the least, significant proportions of the affected communities, deny ever having given consent that is free, prior or properly informed and in most instances they assert that at least one of the those qualities has been missing. Or they assert that signatures have been gained only by threat, trickery or bribery,” the group added.

In some cases, according to NGOs and people’s organizations, the object of bribery are employees at the MGB (Mines and Geo-sciences Bureau) and EMB (Environmental Management Bureau) of the DENR, or government officials from the local government units. “There are cases when the proponent tries to influence through illicit or underground means some members of DENR’s screening committee which reviews the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to ensure its approval. The local government units (LGUs) too are not immune from bribes as they are likewise principal stakeholders in the processing of mining permits. There are even cases where the proponent would put up or create a separate bogus NGO who will support their project,” NASSA’s Joyce Palacol revealed.

Not even tribal leaders are exempt from the bribes and scheming overtures of mining companies. “Tribal leaders sometimes become tribal dealers. Hoodwinked by wily proponents, they are lured, bribed or bought in exchange for their consent for the project,” said Palacol.

Moreover, “mitigating measures” contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) document submitted by mining companies have been more useful on paper than in practice. NASSA’s Joyce Palacol explains, “Based from past records and on-going projects, mitigating measures embodied in the submitted EIA have proven to be failures. Safeguards stipulated have proven to be ineffective and needs to be re-assessed in the light of past experiences. Concrete examples of these are Marinduque, Sipalay and Surigao del Norte mining projects.”

The Ecumenical Bishops Forum in their statement likewise voiced a similar sentiment, “Despite what these laws say about safety nets, it is our experience that foreign mining firms pay lip service to the dignity and well-being of the people especially those directly affected by such mining activities.”

Lastly the problematic issue of rehabilitation in post-mining sites and communities is worth discussing. Experience has it that local communities have suffered the grim consequences—ecological, social, and economic—after mining companies have abandoned or terminated with operations leaving the sites unrehabilitated as in such cases of Benguet Corporation in Itogon, Benguet; of Atlas Consolidated Mining Development Corporation in Toledo City, Cebu; of Manila Mining Corporation in Placer, Surigao del Norte; and not excluding, of course, the scarring legacy of Marcopper in Marinduque.

Curiously, according to independent think-tank IBON Foundation, the government has kept mum on the issue of rehabilitation despite its calibrated stance on mining. “Filipinos are left to deal with long-term effects of mine tailings, contaminated water systems and denuded forest lands. (But) it is ironic how the government wants to revitalize mining by foreign investments and yet leave the issue of mine rehabilitation unattended. Worse yet, both mining and government officials have failed to account for their responsibilities, while the people pay for the costs,” says IBON research director Antonio Tujan.

Ironically still, IBON reports that even mining firms that have notorious records in terms of environmental and social damages like Marcopper, Toronto Ventures Inc. (TVI), Lepanto, and Philex are yet among those endorsed by President Arroyo to be accorded with an array of incentives as Investment Priority Projects (IPPs) under the government’s revitalized mining program.

Nature Is Groaning: Church’s Stance and Teachings

While the Arroyo administration has set its sight for “gold,” or economic deliverance, in mining, the Church cannot simply close its eyes and remain blind to the adverse social, ecological, economic, cultural, and moral implications, problems and consequences of mining. The pastoral statement, “Nature is Groaning: A Statement on the Revitalization of Mining in the Philippines,” of the Episcopal commission on Social Action, Justice and Peace of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines clearly articulates in detail the Church’s stance and teachings on the mining mania:

“Responsible Stewardship (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis #34): As guardians of God’s creation, it is our collective duty to ensure Earth’s well being. Mining tyrannizes nature making it inhospitable to life. As responsible stewards of God’s creation, we must pay attention to the consequences of such actions on the present and future generations.

“Universal Destination of Goods (Gaudium et Spes #69): After developing and nurturing it, everyone must be able to enjoy the fruits of the earth. But, truth is, mining does not benefit everyone save the foreign mining companies alone.

“Integrity of Creation (Sollicitudo Rei Socialiis #34): Nature, with man in it, is an ordered system governed by intricate principles of interrelatedness and interconnectedness. Large-scale destruction caused by mining results in massive disturbance of the system, with disastrous effects on all life forms that the system supports, ultimately leading to the defeat of ecological sustainability.

“Human dignity (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis #47): Mining companies exploit poor locals who are willing to work for low pay under hazardous conditions. Labor unions are suppressed. Some mining operations encroach on ancestral domains. Mining displaces indigenous communities making them lose not only their habitats but also their culture.

“Preferential Option for the Poor (Rerum Novarum #29): The poor suffer when mining operations, requiring heavy volumes of water, deplete the precious resource; when they pollute rivers, springs and brooks; when they destroy watersheds, obliterate farms and poison fishing grounds. The poor end up poorer from economic stagnation when mining operations cease.

“Subsidiarity and People’s Participation (Mater et Magistra #55 & Pacem in Terris #26): Locals are in the best position to decide on development strategies that best respond to their needs and conditions.”

Solution or Illusion?

Bulawan Gold project's reforested area in Sipalay, Negros Occidental.

Indeed, albeit the irreversible depletion or exhaustion of the country’s mineral wealth, destruction of the environment, displacement of indigenous communities, and other adverse corollary consequences, the Arroyo government is yet hell-bent on pinning its hopes for “gold”, if not economic jackpot, in mining. With the Supreme Court’s reversal ruling last year upholding the constitutionality of the Mining Act, there’s no hampering at all for the Arroyo administration to slug it out in enforcing the MAP, its calibrated revitalized mining agenda, brandishing the purported concept of “environmentally, socially, economically sustainable and responsible mining.”

Obviously, the underlying reason proffered by the government in pursuing its rather pro-TNC mining policy is not at all difficult to comprehend: to cash in on mining investments—or extract what former NEDA Secretary Romulo Neri estimates is some $840 billion worth of mineral wealth lying underground—to save the country’s floundering economy and thereby likewise generate more jobs or, in a word, a “solution” to the debilitating economic crisis.

But the government’s so-called calibrated agenda on “environmentally, socially, economically sustainable and responsible mining,” according to NGOs and people’s organizations, may yet hew to be a blimp and has more leaks than the Titanic. President Arroyo’s unswerving hope, if “dream”, of attaining economic salvation from mining may just go the way of all flash. “Illusory,” say NGOs and people’s organizations of Arroyo’s “economic miracle” in mining, for more reasons than one.

One, the country’s long history of mining has in no way brought the Philippines any further to an economic boom, save the long-term social and environmental ill effects after the bust of several mine sites. Noel Sto. Domingo of CBCP-NASSA exactly puts it, “The present economic conditions in Itogon, Benguet and Placer, Surigao del Norte mirror the myth that mining industry is a long-lasting source of income for the community and the local government.”

This is likewise corroborated by the pastoral statement of the Catholic Bishops of Northern Luzon, “Our experience in Northern Luzon, however, disproves what government is saying. Benguet, host to a number of mining companies over several decades still feel the brunt of poverty.”

Another, the provisions of the Mining Act and Minerals Action Plan (MAP)—like, among others, co-financing schemes with the government or with local companies, 100% foreign ownership system, and a wide array of tax incentives—repudiate the government’s purported agenda of ushering in profits and economic benefits for the country.

Independent think-tank IBON Foundation executive director Rosario Bella Guzman explains, “There is no potential of investments since mining transnational corporations (TNCs) usually enter into co-financing schemes with the government or with local companies, or avail of loans from local banks aside from multilateral agencies. Government even co-assumes co-financing whenever exploration fails.”

The IBON director also wonders why government officials get excited about export receipts from a sector that is under a 100% foreign ownership system where mining TNCs are allowed to repatriate their profits fully. And even export earning, Guzman adds, are also cancelled by the huge costs of importation of equipment and inputs, which foreign mining TNCs also produce. “Original investments are petty compared to the superprofits that mining TNCs repatriate from the economy,” say Guzman.

Guzman adds that mining TNCs are already raking in huge profits through speculation, where they gamble on the mere potential of mine sites and make money without actually drilling a hole. “With generally speculative investments, the government is left with nothing,” Guzman said.

Moreover, how can the government earn from mining when it is hell-bent on granting mining companies a wide array of tax incentives which include—6 years tax holidays, 3 years tax holidays for expansion projects, 10 years exemption from export taxes and other fees, and exemption from corporate income tax? “The country is not even assured of additional tax revenues since the government can only collect taxes from companies only after the company has earned its capital, which can take at least 7 years—enough time for mining firms to underdeclare their profits or simply pull out and claim ‘unstable investment climate’ or other reasons. Simply put, the government’s mining policy allows firms to fully repatriate their earnings, including any excess capital, in its first decade of operation and even beyond,” IBON said.

Lastly, that the government’s revitalized mining program will generate more jobs cannot be gauged as substantial enough as to provide long-term benefits. Apart from taking advantage on the country’s cheap labor, mining companies can only accommodate non-technical workers on a short duration during the construction or pre-operational phase. “To a certain degree, yes, mining firms may need local workers, but only for a short period of time—that is, only during the construction phase. After that, workers for the technical positions, only around one or two hundred of them and who are not from the local area, are left behind for the operation and commercial production,” Palacol of NASSA said.

Yes, indeed, the Philippines undeniably abound in mineral wealth—second in the world for gold and third for copper. For which reason, the country has unwittingly gained the reputation being the world’s 5th most mineralized country, borne out certainly not of its collective “free, prior and informed consent” but of globalized economic forces, the World Bank, mining TNCs, WTO—and yes, not to exclude too of the profligate whims and vested interests of the country’s “high and mighty.” Whilst being the world’s 5th most mineralized, the country is yet stuck in damning poverty.

Clearly enough, for more reasons than one, the Arroyo government’s revitalized mining policy contrives not to benefit the country but the mining TNCs—and far from delivering the promised economic salvation, it plainly smacks more of an illusion than not. Wherefore, as such, it appropriately behooves for the national leadership, in the supreme interest of national patrimony, to undertake the logical imperatives: to re-examine its revitalized mining policy and other existing legislative, judicial and executive decisions and policies (R.A. 7942, E.O. 270, Minerals Action Plan) on mining as whether they do stand to benefit the greatest interest of the greater number of people, and; to pursue a genuine sustainable and responsible mining policy and program consonant to the tenets of national patrimony in the extraction and use of natural resources where people themselves are the ones directing its development and benefiting from it.

Whilst, again, scarring is the country’s experience in mining, and the government’s “gunning for gold” in mining is deemed but illusory. What reason else is there for the government to stick to its revitalized mining agenda?