Tampakan Mine has a High potential for Loss of Life and High Environmental damage if the Waste Rock Storage facility or the dams fail

Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation

Dear Editor,

Tampakan Mine has a High potential for Loss of Life and High Environmental

damage if the Waste Rock Storage facility or the dams fail

Dr Robert Goodland and Clive Wicks, the authors of Philippines Mining or Food?, wish to respond to the 8^th November article on the Tampakan mine by NONOY E. LACSON entitled “South Cotabato valley preservation”

We are amazed how SMI/Xstrata or Aecom can claim that the Tampakan mine will not have a negative impact on the water supplies of South Cotabato and that they claim the risks of the mine are low. The heading of this letter is taken directly from the SMI Environmental Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) in which the SMI Waste Management consultants, who designed the dams and waste rock storage facilities, warn that the risks are high (page 42 of their report).

We agree with SMI’s consultants. The proposed Tampakan mine is one of the most dangerous mines we have ever seen and the SMI/Xstrata engineers were right to warn about the dangers.

Dr Robert Goodland, the former Senior Environmental Advisor to the World Bank, and I have over 100 years experience of agriculture, environment, engineering and sustainable development between us. We are not against mining. We advise governments and civil society on the best way of working with extractive industries while promoting sustainable development. We visited the Tampakan area in 2009 with a Filipino Hydro Geologist and we were shocked to discover that the proposed SMI/Xstrata mine is in a vital water catchment that services three agricultural provinces.

The mine will not comply with the excellent Presidential Executive Order 23 of 1st Feb 2011, which places a moratorium on the cutting of all natural and residual forests to protect water catchments.

The mine is proposed in area of high seismic activity with a number of fault lines running through the mine site area some actually crossing others. Mount Matutum, a registered active volcano, is only 12 kilometres away. We don’t agree that SMI/Xstrata can build the dams and rock storage facilities to survive all the seismic activity and climate change. Tailings dams have failed all over the World including 16 in the Philippines killing people and causing massive damage. In July 1985 two Stava Mine dams in Italy collapsed killing 268 people.

There is every chance that the company will induce additional seismic activity by digging an 800 meter deep mine. The seismic activities, induced or not, will most likely damage or destroy the dams and waste rock storage and cause massive damage to people and agriculture sooner or later.

That the storage of 2.7 Billion tons of toxic mine rock waste and tailings will remain forever on top of a mountain with a mine void 800 meter deep with thousands of gallons of toxic water in the water catchment of 6 rivers is far too great a risk to take.

The Philippines needs more than ever to protect its water catchments if it is going to feed its expanding population, currently standing at 91 million and estimated to reach 130 million by 2030.

The South Cotabato Provincial government are absolutely right to maintain the ordinance against open cast mining to protect their future water resources and their economy which depends largely upon agriculture, fisheries and agribusiness.

We have serious concerns about the SMI Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and consider that the stakeholder and economic analysis, risk assessment and resettlement plans are badly flawed. However the ESIA does make it clear that 6 river catchments will be affected by the mine. It is not just the quantity but the quality of water that matters and pollution will ruin it.

Stakeholders. One of our biggest concerns is that Xstrata/SMI does not recognise the human rights of all stakeholders which must include all the people who depend on the 6 water catchments and lakes for their survival and livelihoods. They all need to give their approval before miner’s take control of their vital water resource.

Other comments

• Tampakan Mine will damage forests : SMI plan to clear 3,935 hectares of forest (including 1350 hectares of protected rainforest), water catchments, water supplies including shallow aquifers (only 30-100 meters deep), agricultural lands, fish ponds, Lake Buluan, marine resources and increase risk of flooding. 40,000 Muslims depend on fishing in Lake Buluan and any damage to their lake may destabilise the whole area.

Governments have to keep all remaining forests intact to protect their agricultural production and their people from climate change. Rainfall in South Cotabato is expected to decrease by 20% by 2030 but at the same time flash floods are becoming common in the Philippines.

· Hydrogeology of the Koronadal valley. Aecom claim that the water for South Cotabato comes mainly from Mount Matutum. The hydrogeology of Koronadal was studied by a team from DENR MGB in 2003 and their report is very clear on where the water comes from and that includes the whole Tampakan area.

· SMI claim that “we can capture polluted water and treat it”. It is not possible to capture all the polluted water in this volcanic area as much of the polluted water will simply disappear underground and reappear elsewhere.

• The Mal River will be the worst affected river. The source of its water will be very badly damaged by the two SMI dams which will be situated just above the (NIA) irrigation dam. The Mal River Basin in Davao del Sur is where most people will be killed if the dams fail.

• High risk of acid mine drainage from waste rock and tailings which also contain high levels of arsenic.

• Cancer - Toxic copper mine waste is associated with high levels of cancer in communities near to it. (See page 115, Philippines Mining or Food? )

• Human rights- It is a highly unstable area with a number of militant groups. Mining will increase friction and damage the human rights particularly those of its indigenous people but also many other stakeholders. People who oppose the mine are already being killed.

• Damage to government plans - Open cast mining will undermine current sustainable development, agricultural, fisheries and ecotourism plans.

• Moratoriums - All mining companies should respect the Moratoriums in place and cease all open cast mining activities.

Clive Wicks and Robert Goodland – are members of the London Working Group on Mining in the Philippines (WGMP-UK)

Working Group on Mining in the Philippines (WGMP - UK) Reports

Philippines - Concerns and Conflicts (2007) and Philippines - Mining or Food? (2010)

Photos Reports and Maps at launches

http://philippinesminingorfood.blogspot.com

http://www.piplinks.org/miningorfood

http://www.eccr.org.uk/module-htmlpages-display-pid-52.html
Philippines: Mining or Food? Abbreviated version http://www.piplinks.org/system/files/Mining+or+Food+Abbreviated.pdf

WGMP Members : Cathal Doyle, Irish Centre For Human Rights; Miles Litvinoff, ECCR; Frank Nally SSC, Columbans; Ellen Teague, Vocation for Justice, Columbans; Geoff Nettleton, PIPLinks; Andy Whitmore, PIPLinks; Clive Wicks, IUCN-CEESP. Consultant, Dr Robert Goodland.

This Mad Migraine

Allow me to rant about the present mining situation in my country, the Philippines, once, the Pearl of the Orient Seas.

To start off, my country has the worst Department that is mandated to protect its rich natural resources. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it seems to me, is suffering from a dangerous case of schizophrenia - endangering the very people who mandated the Department and its Mission, and endangering the resources that it's supposed to protect and conserve. This Department is in charge of protecting wildlife, endangered species and landscapes. It's supposed to protect the biodiversity, nay, the mega-diversity (!) of this great country. Not to be too harsh on them, but in some cases they are true to their nomenclature. A pawikan saved here and there, an occasional eagle they helped release in the wild (dolphins and whales are under the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) or a tree-planting activity in one of the Local Government Units (LGUs).

Then they will just drop a bomb and say that they will lift the moratorium on mining applications and literally sell-off the Philippines to foreign mining investors. Highest bidder gets to fuck this poor country (excuse my French, but fuck is the most appropriate word I know of in this instance). As a matter of fact, I think China just won one round in this gang bang. 1 Billion US dollars of investments! Investments in what, if I may ask? Food security? Climate change mitigation? Peace process? Noooooo, investments in digging abysmal holes in our virgin forests, raking in OUR metals for THEIR products! And mining cohorts give a one-page ad in Inquirer saying 'Thank you, Mr. President."

I can't help but utter a curse whenever I see that advertisement in television, that one which says that mining corporations have been rehabilitating forests during and after their operations. How stupid can that be? How do you rehabilitate an old-growth forest (forests that sustain billions of life in an interconnectedness that we cannot even fathom) back to its pristine state when you have changed the composition of its soil, water, rocks? You cannot bring back its old state. Once you churn around the earth and upset the chemicals that took millions of years to stabilize, you cannot have the same diversity as that old forest, now dead. Once an area of mega-diversity has been disturbed, you create a chain of disastrous events - starting with the littlest fungi, to the ants, to the giant trees - ultimately leading back to our own species. Compound that problem with an island ecosystem and you might want to volunteer erasing the Philippines off the coral triangle and off the 17 mega-diversity countries.

We are a threatened species. The once mighty Homo sapiens sapiens is nothing compared to the Earth trembling. We are reduced to scared Neanderthals, back in their caves, whenever a typhoon comes battering our streets and our beloved technologies. Compare that to the deaths that are daily caused by our own kind. A mother killing her own child in Manila, a man killing innocent children in Norway, a mad stampede in India, a war in the name of God somewhere, a war in the name of drugs in another place. Amidst all these threats, we continue fanning the flames of our own deaths - of others' deaths, hell, of our children's deaths. We sign 1-billion-dollar contracts selling off our minerals, we sign our deaths. Our wounds have not even healed, the burns continue to fester in Marinduque where the Marcopper disaster occurred, yet here we are prying open our country's vagina to foreigners.

We cannot now trust this schizophrenic Department of Environment and Natural Resources. How can you trust a man patting your back reassuringly, with a knife in his other hand? Even its name blows up its cover. Of course 'natural resources' will always be a 'source' or a supply. But where is the RE (prefix meaning again and again) in the 'resource' if it's not renewable? Minerals are NOT renewable, therefore it is not a RE-source.

There are alternatives to foreign-operated mining. Agricultural and eco-tourism relies on the richness of our lands. These are two of our alternatives. They may not give us instant revenues as mining does, they may not be easy, as mining is (because we leave the thinking and the operations to non-Filipinos) but they are better and sustainable alternatives.

When I am old, I want to photograph Lake Sebu in South Cotabato - with the same golden sun washing its waters and the same happy children bathing. I want to photograph Mount Isarog in Camarines Sur with that same lush, green and dense light coming from the forest top. I want to go back to Culion in Palawan and swim with its violet and blue corals, and meet Nemo once again in his comfortable sea anemone!

All these areas are threatened by mining. As we all are.

Mining Act of 1995 vs. Minerals Management Bill at a Glance

The Mining Act of 1995

• Caters to the need of the global extractives industry players to access mineral areas and control the use of minerals to feel global corporate demand for raw materials and energy in the production, distribution and consumption of commodity products.
• The Act facilitates the entry of corporations into ecosystems and community territories for the exploration and extraction of minerals to be shipped out of the country in exchange for revenues from the corporations.
• Fiscal incentives regime of the Act grants too many incentives for investments, including confidentiality of information, return of investments, tax-break etc.
• The Act has been used to sabotage local government efforts to protect the health, environment and livelihoods of their constituents; corrupted the Free, Prior and Informed Consent process of indigenous peoples communities; rendered inutile the Environmental Impact Assessment system; and has brought about human right violations against communities and individual resisting mining.
• 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 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.
• It allows 100% ownership and control of natural resources to foreigners.
• The Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of La Bugal B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos, a decision that was overturned less than a year later. The history of the case mirrors the proclivity of the government to act against its better judgment once the so-called profits of mining are brought into the picture.

The Minerals Management Bill

• It has its origins in the 2002 conference of environmental, social and community rights advocates that has criticized the economic and political set-up of the mining industry and opposed the Mining Act.
• After years of consultation on the ground and meeting with experts HB 3763 was filed in congress, which was then called Alternative Mining Bill (AMB).
• Official title: An Act to Regulate the Rational Exploration, Development and Utilization of Mineral Resources and to Ensure the Equitable Sharing of Benefits for the State, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, and for other Purposes.
• Introduced in Congress by Hon. Kaka J. Bag-ao and Hon. Walden Bello (Akbayan Partylist), Hon. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr., Hon. Rufus Rodriguez, Hon. Maximo Rodriguez, Hon. Carlos Padilla and Hon. Roilo Golez.

Important Provisions of the Minerals Management Bill

• Conservation of our Mineral Resources

  • Use of minerals must consider the allocation needed to be used by future generations, re-mining and recycling of minerals will be prioritized as well as rehabilitation of old mines.
  • If to be used by the present generation, it would only be under a rational need based utilization and domestic use.

• For the benefit of the Filipino People

  • Exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources will be geared towards national industrialization and modernization of agriculture. The state shall build the domestic processing capacity for industrial metals and other labor-intensive downstream industries.
  • Only mineral resources that shall be needed for local industries shall be mined.

• Minerals Utilization Framework

  • This framework will be formulated to support plans for national development based on sustainable development.
  • The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) will be transformed into a purely scientific research institution under the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). Exploration of strategic minerals shall be exclusively and directly undertaken the State through the Bureau.
  • MGB shall come up with an inventory of mineral resources, identify strategic minerals needed for national development, demarcate mineral areas and build baseline information on watershed continuums.

• Multi-sectoral Minerals Council

  • Affected local communities and LGUs will be those potentially affected by mining located in relation to a watershed continuum – an area consisting of a watershed and the interconnection from the headwater to the reef.
  • A multi-sectoral minerals council will be created in each watershed continuum area which will have the authority to allow extraction and processing of minerals in their area and approve mineral agreements.

• Ownership of Indigenous Peoples

  • Mineral resources within ancestral domains/ancestral lands are the collective property of the indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples.
  • No mining shall be conducted within ancestral domains/land without their free, prior and informed consent.

• No Go Zones

  • There will be areas closed to mining operations which will include among others –

    • Critical watersheds
    • Geo-hazard areas
    • Small island ecosystems
    • Land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
    • Key biodiversity areas, etc.

• Mineral extraction will not be allowed in areas more beneficial to other land use, priority to food security and livable conditions for peoples.

• Mineral Agreements

  • Shall be reserved for Filipino citizens and for Filipino corporations.
  • Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs) and any toher agreements granting foreign corporations to explore or extract mineral resources will not be allowed.
  • Contract area per agreement shall not exceed five hundred (500) hectares and the maximum allowable total contract area for any person in any given watershed area will be seven hundred –fifty (750) hectares.
  • The term for a mineral agreement will be the mine life plus five (5) years for rehabilitation, which in total should not exceed fifteen (15) years.

• Maximizing gains and preventing or mitigating adverse effects

  • Corporate transparency and accountability will be established. Contractors shall submit their Environmental and Social Impact Prevention and Mitigation Plan which will also contain a Social Development Management Plan.
  • Mandatory consultation with affected communities shall be undertake in each phase of mining operation.
  • Human rights protection will be prioritized and penalties imposed for violations.

• Equitable sharing

  • Aside from fees and taxes, government shall have at least a share of equivalent to ten per cent (10%) of the gross revenues from the development and utilization of mineral resources.
  • In case of mineral operations within ancestral domains, the contractor shall pay at least ten per cent (10%) of the gross revenues as royalty to the Indigenous Peoples or Communities.
  • Community development programs shall not be considered as royalty payment.

On the K to 12 and the 2020 Bogor Deadline

The Department of Education (DepEd) Technical Working Group on Transition Management for the K to 12 plans to roll-out its curriculum based on the K to 12 model starting next school year 2012-2013 in selected pilot schools. In its transition scheme, incoming Grade 1 and 1^st year High School will have a new curriculum based on K to 12 standards and competencies.

Incoming 1^st year College will also have to enter a 5^th year High School for an alternative delivery mode for Grades 11 and 12 (Senior High School, Pre-University or Career Academy). A bridging curriculum will be set in place by “providing transition mechanisms, the major one being the offering of formal education based on a curriculum that will bridge the gap between the current 10th grade learning competencies and the academic admission requirements of the revised tertiary curricula” (Dr. Vea).

With regard to Grade 11, the transition scheme offers several problems. Among others:

· It would be very difficult to find students who will volunteer to go through Grades 11 and 12. Since this will be in selected pilot schools, they can actually opt to go to College. Why then would they enter a shady Grade 11?

· The curriculum for Grades 11 and 12 are not yet finalized. The decision on what to put on the two additional years has not yet been made.

· The logistical problem for administrators of schools who suddenly found themselves with a “neither-high-school-nor-college” population. Who will be the teachers of these students? And since HEIs would have no or little enrolment for freshmen, logically Grades 11 and 12 will be implemented by HEIs. Now, where will they get the teachers? How do you compensate them?

· Textbooks and other materials are not yet developed and printed for Grades 11 and 12.

· Increased drop-outs due to perceived irrelevance of going to Grades 11 and 12.

How do we solve these problems? The solution is simple: In school year 2012-2013, continue with the K to 12 curriculum roll-out in Grade 1 and 1^st year High School and let the 4^th year High School graduates enter College.

In this scheme, 1^st year High School students for 2012-13 will move on to Grade 11 in 2016 after they finish their 4^th year in High School. In effect, their batch's curriculum will be a continuous whole leading to Grades 11 and 12 and on to a new Tertiary Education General and Professional curricula. If we re-arrange the tertiary education curricula by pushing down some General Education subjects to Grades 11 and 12, it would be possible to have a three-year College system – almost 40 units will be deducted in College. Students who choose to enter a university can graduate by school year 2020-2021.

This scheme also gives ample time for administrators of HEIs to develop curricula in line with international standards and enough time to plan and set in place new administrative policies.

Why then does the DepEd have to expedite the process? One possible answer is international pressure. The APEC Bogor Declaration of free and open trade and investment, of which the Philippines is a signatory, is one.

The main goal of the Bogor Declaration is “to adopt the long-term goal of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific. This goal will be pursued promptly by further reducing barriers to trade and investment and by promoting the free flow of goods, services and capital among our economies.” The declaration set the deadline to 2010 and 2020:

We further agree to announce our commitment to complete the achievement of our goal of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific no later than the year 2020. The pace of implementation will take into account differing levels of economic development among APEC economies, with the industrialized economies achieving the goal of free and open trade and investment no later than the year 2010 and developing economies no later than the year 2020.

The Osaka Action Agenda set the implementation of the Bogor declaration into priority measures for member economies. One of the agenda is Human Resources Development (HRD) with eight priority action areas:

1. Providing a quality basic education;

2. Analyzing the regional labor market to allow sound forecasting of trends and need in HRD;

3. Increasing the supply and enhancing the quality of managers, entrepreneurs, scientists and educators/trainers;

4. Reducing the skills deficiencies and unemployment by designing training programs for applications at all stages of a person's working life;

5. Improving the quality of curricula, teaching methods and instructional materials for mangers and other workers;

6. Increasing opportunities for people seeking to gain skills; and

7. Preparing organizations and individuals to remain productive in the face of rapid economic and technological changes.

8. Promoting HRD toward the liberalization and facilitation of trade and investment. Increased international mobility of qualified persons for HRD activities will also enhance economic growth.

Priority 8 further states that:

· Enhancement of the capacity and opportunities for the movement among member economies of people who have skills relevant for economic growth is a necessary element in achieving trade and investment liberalization and standardization in the region. Thus, consistent with the goals of APEC, its HRD activities must facilitate the movement and interaction of qualified persons.

· The conduct of increased levels of exchanges of students, staff and researchers through the University Mobility in Asia Pacific and increased exchanges of education officials through EDNET cooperation are also underway and continuing.

· A series of bilateral agreements for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications between professional bodies or government are being pursued in the long-term.

· Toward this end, member economies shall share best practices and undertake training programs in the system of accreditation, curriculum development, and certification of professions in the short-term. Mutual recognition of qualification is endeavored to be realized in the long-term.

The Bogor Declaration on Free Trade sets into place mechanisms that would facilitate mobility of our students and workers in Asia Pacific. Graduates no longer have to take qualifying examinations in other countries in order to practice their professions and education experts and officials may also be part of the cross-border exchanges.

But this is only possible if our education cycle and curricula are in line with the standards of APEC member economies. That means 15 to 16 years of elementary and post-elementary education. In the APEC Joint Ministerial Statement (November 2006) it stated that “Ministers recognized the importance of standards in education and encouraged members to develop reference curricula and materials to address the significance of standards and conformance to trade facilitation in the region.” These standards in education have to be developed in line with international standards.

It therefore means that by 2020, the Philippines should have set the K to 12 Basic Education Cycle and the 3 to 4 years of Tertiary Education, in place. The first graduates who have completed 15 or 16 years of elementary and post-elementary education should be, following the Declaration, by year 2020. The DepEd transition scheme, as mentioned earlier, is two years ahead of the deadline.

The second transition scheme presented, on the other hand, will have its first graduate in school year 2020-2021. Yet we may argue that compliance to the Bogor Declaration has already been started and met during the first year that the K to 12 curriculum has been rolled-out to the Grade 1 and 1^st year students. Another important thing to note here is that APEC is easy to dismiss. It has no institutional structure or binding legal agreements. However, the Bogor Goals give developing economies like the Philippines opportunities to increase further our economic growth and level of development.

The clearer message is this: K to 12 education reform must be pushed through next year, starting with Grade 1 and 1^st year high school. Higher Education Institutions must develop their curricula in line with the Basic Education Curriculum developed while waiting for the first batch of Grade 11. Then let Grades 11 and 12 prepare the students to either the world of work or a university life. Grade 11 will start in school year 2016-2017.