Press Release : Why Tampakan Mine shouldn't be allowed to proceed: 23 March 2012

Press Release : Why Tampakan Mine shouldn't be allowed to proceed: 23 March 2012

• 1.
          Press Release: Why Tampakan Mine shouldn't be allowed to proceed Press Statement on the experts' take on the issues discussed during the much talked about Philippine Mining Conference held in Makati last March 2.                    
• 2.
  Press Statement 23rdMarch 2012 We are concerned that some of the key issues discussed at the mining conference, ‘Mining's Impact on Philippine Economy and Ecology’ organized by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines and the Management Association of the Philippines at the InterContinental Manila in Makati City on the Friday 2nd March 2012, were not adequately reported . It was not reported that there was agreement that all miners, large or small scale, must respect the Laws and that the government does not have the institutional capability to evaluate and regulate mining. The discussants all supported, in principle, the concept of “responsible” mining, although there were disagreements on what constitutes “responsible” mining and how that is measured and applied to specific situations. Nor was it generally reported that the mining industry opposes the use of the Total Economic Valuation to determine the real cost of mining by accounting for environmental, social and economic costs, an analytical tool that has been in use for decades. Without full cost accounting, there is no basis for determining whether a mining project is really good for the country. And this has been going on for over 50 years. Where we disagreed with the mining proponents and proposed areas for immediate action are: Mining, alternatives and Agriculture. We disagree completely when Miners claim that they only operate in areas which are not valuable for forestry, biodiversity, agriculture, fishing or tourism. The maps we made with PAFID (Philippines Association for Intercultural Development) and UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environmental Programme) and our report “Philippines Mining or Food?” based on MGB’s own mining tenement maps, show the real scale of the problem if overlaid with the Department of Agriculture (DA) agricultural and irrigation maps, e.g. 70% of the agricultural lands in the Zamboanga Peninsula were covered in mining tenements and current mining plans are undermining the DA’s ability to make the country self-sufficient in rice by 2013 to feed an estimated population of 130 million by 2030. All mining projects should be vetted by the DA and other departments or bureaus responsible for or developing irrigation, marine resources and tourism for their approval/disapproval before exploration is permitted. Expenditure on exploration is used by miners as a reason to be allowed to mine later . DENR’s conflicting functions. DENR’s role of promoting mining, oil, gas, and forestry exploitation should be reappraised. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau should be separated and join another department leaving the DENR responsible for environmental protection and development. The Forestry Management Bureau, Environmental Management Bureau, Land Management Bureau and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau would remain under DENR management. The DENR could then better ensure environmental protection by focusing on compliance, monitoring, enforcement and sustainable development. Sustainable environmental planning projects and strategic environmental assessments would be undertaken by the independent DENR ensuring that the country’s environmental resources and biodiversity are developed and intergenerational obligations met by the government. Responsible Mining. While we agree with the principle, is it really possible to practice ‘responsible’ mining in any part of the Philippines which is so dependent upon agriculture and fisheries? The MGB mining tenement maps contain no reference to important agricultural areas, key biodiversity areas, watersheds, fish breeding zones etc. Mining Tenements even encroach into legally protected National Parks such as Mt. Guiting-Guiting in Sibuyan Island, Mt. Hamiguitan Wildlife Sanctuary and Pujada Bay Protected Landscape and Seascape in Davao del Norte to name but a few. We believe also that it is fundamentally wrong to allow mines in watersheds particularly in areas of high seismic activity, in agricultural lands or in areas of armed conflict. Projects such as the Tampakan project which is sited in a vital watercatchment for four provinces in an area of high seismic activity with a” high potential for loss of life and high environmental damage” (quote from SMI ESIA report) would never be allowed either in the UK or Switzerland where Xstrata/Glencore are registered. It will affect 6 rivers, fragile aquifers and up to 150,000 hectares of
• 3.
  irrigated land includingwater supplies for thousands of people. It is also in a conflict zone. Why should the Philippines permit such a mine and carry the known and unknown risks and costs forever? Full and Fair Share of Government in Mining Revenues - The mining industry objects to the government proposal to increase its share, except for one major mining company. Most of the mineral rich countries are doing this now. The 2% excise tax on production value is a tax for the extraction activity. The minerals themselves are given no value. Instead, it is government pays the miners to extract the minerals with foregone revenues from generous tax incentives and tax holidays. The mining companies do not even start paying taxes until they have recovered their pre-operating and development costs. Mining is a Social Justice issue. Miners also claim that their mining projects cover a small land area but in reality they often leave a very large footprint as a result of mine pollution and siltation. To quote from Christian Monsod’s conference presentation, “Mining activities are usually located in rural and mountainous areas and can affect farmlands, rivers and shorelines, where the poorest of the poor are located namely, the farmers, indigenous peoples and municipal fishermen. The fact is that mining cannot be conducted without affecting the land, water, and air surrounding the site, as well as the various natural resources found in them. That is why mining is often cited as an example of what Paul Krugman calls, ‘activities that privatize benefits and socialize costs”. The rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and of fishermen and farmers to their subsistence livelihoods are constitutionally protected and cannot be sacrificed in the name of ‘responsible mining’. Congress is required to give the highest priority to the protection of human rights. Furthermore, the impact of mining on the scale envisaged is inconsistent with the fundamental right to a healthful ecology. We also agree with Monsod’s proposal that, since mining extracts non-renewable natural capital, all the government revenues from mining should be put in a special trust fund to create new capital such as improved human resources and infrastructure in rural areas, as well as to compensate the poor directly affected by mining. Similar funds exist in progressive mineral-rich countries, i.e. Norway, Chile and Chad. High Level Inter-Departmental Committee. There is a desperate need for strategic planning and overall supervision of all mining and other extractive industries and land conversion projects by a High Level Inter-Departmental Committee. All affected Departments and stakeholders including representative of civil society should be represented in an Inter-Governmental Committee which we believe should include a reformed DENR, the Departments of Agriculture, Tourism and Finance, and in cases of conflict possibly the Commission on Human Rights. The responsibility and accountability of Central Government and Local Government is also vital. Central government should act as a check and balance on local government units while local government should act as a check and balance to national government. Miners should not be allowed to interfere in this process by providing financial or other support for politicians who support mining against those trying to protect their environment and people. All laws should be respected and enforced. Finally, like many countries we recommend that the Philippines use Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) to judge the likely impact of environmentally critical development projects like mining or oil exploration on ecosystems, urban and rural communities and important sustainable economic activities like agriculture and fisheries prior to any decision-making and long-term land conversion developments. Clive Montgomery Wicks on behalf of himself and Dr Robert Goodland Conservation and Development Consultant (Specialising on Impact of Oil, Gas, Mining and Biofuel Projects) Member of London Working Group on Mining in the Philippines Member of IUCN-CEESP (IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic & Social Policy) Member of SEAPRISE (CEESP Theme on the Social and Environmental Accountability of the Private Sector) Hare's Holt, Orestan Lane, Effingham, Surrey, KT24 5SN, UK Tel No + 44 (0) 1372 452258, Mobil + 44 (0)7806064784 Working Group on Mining in the Philippines Reports Co-author of Philippines Concerns and Conflicts (2007) & Philippines - Mining or Food? (2010) Photos launches with links to Reports and Maps http://philippinesminingorfood.blogspot.com