Ateneo de Naga University Supports Urgent Alternative Mining Legislation (A University Stand)

After thorough discussion of the issues involved, the students, faculty, staff and administrators of the Ateneo de Naga University support the Alternative Mining Bill (HB0026).* This Bill provides for the protection of people and ecosystems from mining activities, ensures sustainability of livelihood and domestic needs, and defines clearly the terms used, preventing misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise. It also prescribes recycling and reuse of metals and other materials now considered wastes, when such can still be remolded for other uses, thereby reducing the need for mining. It further recognizes the persistent danger of acid mine drainage to the ecosystems, to croplands and fishing areas, and to human livelihood, health and survival, as well as the survival of other living organisms. With the no-go zones such as forests, vital watersheds, coral reefs, and seagrass/seaweed beds, the Bill guarantees the sustained replenishment of natural resources for the future generations of humans and other living organisms.

In contrast, the Mining Act of 1995 is skewed for the benefit of mining investors, mainly foreign. It allows approval of excessively large areas for mining, as much as 16,200 has. onshore and 40,500 has. offshore for Mineral Agreements. It also allows 81,000 has. onshore and 324,000 has. offshore for Financial and Technical Agreements, even if our country is composed of small island ecosystems with forests, surrounded by coral reefs. Mining companies are also permitted to pollute rivers and buy cheaply properties of local landowners for expansion of their operations above and below the ground. Companies are even given water rights, timber rights, easement rights, and entry into private lands and concession areas. They are also given tax incentives through which companies are not required to pay taxes until they have fully recovered from construction expenses and from losses by misfortune or mismanagement. These provisions in law leave almost nothing to the country but degraded and polluted land and water resources. Thus, they abet a culture of greed and corruption as mining companies and investors from within and outside the country venture into mining with unprecedented hunger for gold, silver, copper, nickel, manganese and other toxic heavy metals while ignoring the glaring evidence of the people’s suffering in mining areas. The result is peoples impoverished not blessed by mining; where sickness and/or early death of local laborers is certain as toxic heavy metals incapacitate even the healthiest person, and where their agricultural lands and fishing areas are so laid waste that they cannot be restored to their formerly productive state. These conditions did not reach the attention of concerned groups and pertinent government offices; they were hidden by government officials of dubious integrity and by intimidated private and government employees during past administrations in the country. Hence, the Mining Act of 1995 also resulted in a culture of helplessness among the people.

Conversely, the Alternative Mining Law is an effort to stop the abuses of mining companies of the country’s natural wealth and dependent human communities. Some important provisions are::

1. Only Filipino citizens or Filipino corporations (at least 60% of whose equity is owned and controlled by Filipinos) may mine.

2. Mineral resources in public or private lands, including timber of forestlands, as defined in existing laws, shall be closed to mining. A Council shall have the power to determine whether or not the lands where mineral resources are found shall be opened to mining.

3. The Permit to Mine shall be granted by a Multi-Sectoral Mineral Council through unanimous vote.

4. The area for mineral agreements shall not exceed a maximum of 500 hectares.

5. The term of a mining concession shall be equivalent to the mine life plus an additional 5 years for rehabilitation of the mining area. In no case shall a Mineral Agreement have a term beyond 15 years. There shall be also no extension allowed.

6. Consultation with the people shall be mandatory in each phase of the mining operation.

7. Expropriation proceedings shall be required for use of timber, water, and private land; priority use of water for domestic, municipal and agricultural purposes shall be observed; water used in mining shall be recycled; information on/full disclosure of mining methods and processes, environmental and social risks, ownership structures, and financial sources should be available/practised.

8. Mining companies shall pay all taxes and fees as required by law; Government shall receive at least 10% of gross revenues; ICCs/IPs shall receive a royalty of 10% of gross revenues.

If you agree with the AdNU position, please act now to urge passage of this alternative mining legislation

*[Recently re-filed by Reps. Kaka Bag-ao and Erin Tañada as the Minerals Management Bill (HB 3763)]

We Need an Alternative Mining Law, NOW.

On March 3, 1995, Republic Act 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 was passed, aiming for the revitalization and liberalization of the mining industry to foreign investment. Mining in the country was further strengthened by the Arroyo administration with EO 270 and 270-A which pushed for the revitalization of the mining industry as a pillar of growth and declares that the vast mineral resources of our country should be utilized for economic development and poverty alleviation especially in the rural areas.

There is a very pressing need to address the devastating effects of mining on the environment and the communities, acknowledging the fact that mining is an intrinsically dirty, wasteful and destructive industry. In the Philippines, the Marcopper disaster in Marinduque is one of the most notorious examples dramatizing the Philippines’ own struggle with the hazards of mining. In 1993, the collapse of the Maguila-guila dam at the Marcopper mine of Placer Dome, a Canadian owned mining firm, released a flood of metal-enriched silt into Mogpog river. The flood killed two children, destroyed homes, downed livestock and contaminated farmlands. In 1996, a drainage tunnel to the Boac river burst, filling the river with four million tons of toxic sludge which rendered the river biologically dead. [1] In less than 20 years, more than 200 million tons of mine tailing were directly spilled into the waters of Calancan Bay.

Not far from my very own home, In Rapu-Rapu Island, poor environmental safeguards contributed to at least two cyanide-laden spillages and fish kills within six months of mine commencing operations in 2005. This had a significant effect on local fisherfolk’s livelihoods, as well as causing fear among communities about eating locally-caught fish.[2] In addition, neighboring communities consistently raised their concerns about the Rapu-Rapu mine both before and during the period in which it operated.

The history of Marinduque and Rapu- Rapu mines record the failure of mining corporations to hear and address the grievances of local communities who vehemently protest the impacts of the mine on their environment, their livelihood and their lives.

Yet, despite these statistics and experiences, our policy-makers have championed mining as the virtual savior of our economy and made it a “pet project” of sorts, labouring under the illusion that it can still bring high revenues for the government. But the so-called “resource curse,” means that many of the world’s most resource-rich are its poorest economically. Adeline Angeles, Chair of the Committee on Environment in the Marinduque Provincial Legislative body, graphically describes the myth of sustainable mining when she mentioned in an interview that, “lots of people can’t think of any possibility for such thing as “sustainable mining” in our island, first because of the geography, we not only believe, we know that it is beyond the carrying capacity of the island. We became the third most denuded province in the entire Philippines because of mining. Out internal water, rivers and lakes have become polluted because of large scale mining for 30 years.”[3]

In developing countries, like the Philippines, mineral-rich provinces continue to have higher poverty incidences despite the operations of mining companies. Instead, mining has exacerbated conflicts, resulted in the displacement of indigenous peoples and other rural communities, heightened the numbers of extra-judicial killings and of human rights violations, and caused and intensified pollution and depletion of natural resources which for generations have sustained livelihoods and defined our people’s ways of life.

The promotion of mining, therefore, in this time of crisis will translate not only to bad investment but also to the waste of what little resources we have remaining. There is an obvious and urgent need to shift our present framework on mining.

Since the passage of the Philippine Mining Act on March 1995, revitalization of the mining industry was enforced shifting government policies from tolerance to aggressive promotion of large-scale mining. Many from the Academe, Indigenous communities, NGOs, POs and environmentalists see the Act as inherently flawed[4]:

- It promotes the exportation of raw materials without maximizing the benefits of such resources for the Filipino people;

- It prioritizes exploration, development and utilization of resources over and above human rights, food security and environmental conservation;

- It grants too much power for decision-making to the President, when resources are the only heritage of the Filipino people, meanwhile disempowering local communities through participatory mechanisms;

- The law is not consistent with sustainable development;

- It grants too many incentives for investments, including confidentiality of information, return of investments, tax-breaks, etc.;

- It lacks systems that would ensure payment and compensation of affected communities and local government units;

- It lacks systems that would ensure payment and compensation of affected communities and local government units;

- It fails to provide for punishment and accountability on social impacts, including human rights violations;

- It fails to provide a rational and comprehensive benefit-sharing among the stakeholders;

- It fails to consider the physical characteristics of the Philippines that is not conducive to industries like these, despite the claims that the Philippines has a rich mineral resources, when the country, in fact, is also a rich agricultural country; and

- It allows 100% ownership and control of natural resources to foreigners.

The policies, principles and provisions contained in the Mining Act of 1995 sorely lack what is needed to effectively respond to the needs of the Filipino people and to survive the current economic and environmental crisis that we together face. House Bil 206 is proposed to take the place of the current mining law and among others –

- Guarantees that the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources are primarily for the benefit of the Filipino people;

- Prioritizes more viable and more sustainable livelihood choices for communities, giving utmost importance to food security and livable conditions for the peoples;

- Ensures that the gains from the mining industry would be maximized while preventing or mitigating its adverse effects of the same;

- Recognizes that the issue on the environment is local and prioritize local participation in decisions surrounding mining; and

- Protects human rights of communities and individuals and impose harsh penalties for the violations thereof.

House Bill 206 or the Alternative Mining bill takes into consideration the decades-long issues, experiences and analyses of different individuals, organizations and communities affected by mining in the Philippines. It is a tool to elevate the marginalized and impoverished communities through the legal system to force government, transnational corporations, international finance corporations and other countries to face communities, to address the loopholes of the Mining Act of 1995 and stop unjust mining regime and practices in the Philippines.

---

[1] Ingrid Macdonal and Katy Southal, “Mining Ombudsman Case Report: Marinduque Island,” published 2005: Victoria Australia, p. 3.

[2] Shanta Martin and Kelly Newell, “The Mining Ombudsman Case Report: Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Mine,” published 2008 , Victoria Australia, p. 2.

[3] Macdonald and Southal, p.12.

[4] Culled from the Alternative Mining Bill: In Brief leaflet of the Alyansa Tigil Mina.

KILLING GOD: Sagittarius Mines and the B'laan Tribe

In a course of a year, hundreds, even thousands of people would have already been displaced by mining firms all over the globe (especially in Developing Countries). Consider, for a moment, whole families being displaced/relocated not because of any natural disasters or wars but by mankind’s insatiable appetite for metals and minerals. Thinking about all these people, I often ask myself: “how can you transfer a plant to a new pot, when you’ve left the roots on the old pot?” Surely that plant would die.

There is, in Mindanao, an area of cultural wonders, where one can immerse back to pre-colonial Philippines and where people still sing the creation of the world in a language all their own.

And in this same area, an ulcer the size of an open-pit mine, also broils feverishly: the Tampakan Project of Sagittarius Mines in South Cotabato.

For hundreds of years, the lumads (Visayan word for ‘native’) in this area of South Cotabato have created a unique culture distinct from among themselves, and especially different from their Muslim and Christian neighbors. Their environment has shaped not only their world-view but their modes of living. Animistic, these tribes believe in the very sanctity of the land under their every footfall, the water that gives life and the very air that nourishes them. This belief in the sacredness of the earth has shaped the lifestyles of the lumads that in a sense, to destroy it is to virtually destroy their identity as a unique group of people. Not only is it equivalent to terminating their character as a tribe but also a damnable sacrilege! Imagine demolishing the Vatican or the Ka’aba just because it has a good amount of copper and gold underneath!

The Tampakan Project in South Cotabato is just about that – the “Vatican” and the “Ka’aba” sitting on, supposedly, the largest copper and gold deposit in Southeast Asia.

The B’laans and the T’bolis in that area just know it as “home” since time immemorial. Then all of a sudden, “people of the spade” come with their foreign idea that the earth is a dead thing they can buy, quarry, divide, pollute, and transform according to their whims and wants. The lumads scratch their heads for they do not understand what kind of monsters would believe and do such things to their home, to God even! What antimony to the source of Life!

We have been made to believe that economic progress necessitates such actions – that in exchange for the lumads’ dis-locations, that in exchange for toppling mountains, that in exchange for exterminating species of plants and animals, that in exchange for the annihilation of age-old cultures – our government coffers will be full, that we will all be rich!

I say: better to be poor than to be a nation of blind murderers.

Resist this sacrilege! If needs be, invoke religious rage.