Five years ago, in an Eagle Eyes column, I wrote that we are a country rich in mineral resources. But our islands also are also full of people, as well as rich in other living or non-living resources that sustain economic activities such as farming, eco-tourism, and fishing. Mining operations necessarily involve the alteration of the land or seabed, such that people who use the land or sea for settlement and/or livelihood are likely to be displaced by mining operations. The lands where mineral resources are located may also have cultural or ecological values not easily measured in monetary terms. The benefits derived from mining must therefore balance its costs on people and the environment. Compensation for losses must be provided on top of the rightful share of the country and local people of the income from mineral wealth.
The impact of mining operations in the Philippines is magnified because their scale is large compared to the total area and population affected (often in small islands, with many communities living in the area intended for mining, with high risk of natural disasters). This is in contrast to the impact of mining operations in continental settings (e.g., Australia, Canada, the United States) where the size of mining operations is small compared to the vastness of the continent, with a sparse population and less diverse natural ecosystems.
Mining operations are either large-scale or small-scale. Unfortunately, the policy criteria for categorizing small- versus large-scale mining do not always match the criteria for determining the scale of environmental impacts or economic benefits. But for both types of mining, these questions must be addressed: (a) Should mining prevail over current land uses? Are the benefits from mining sufficient and fairly distributed? Are the social and environmental costs fully considered and compensated? Are the risks of adverse impact reduced to a minimum and socially acceptable to those who bear them? When local stakeholders decide that the risks are unacceptable, can the national government override that decision based on broader criteria?
In 2012, I also asked these fundamental questions that are still relevant today: Who has the right to decide? How are decisions made, and on what basis? Unfortunately, the dynamics of “who decides” keep changing as policies change. When decisions and decision-making are inconsistent or unstable because of the lack of empirical bases, stakeholders tend to appeal to the highest power that can enforce a decision in their favor. This opens up venues for arbitrary decision-making based on factors other than facts. The net effect is the absence of stability and consistency in decision-making. Conflicts persist. Where there is convergence of mineral resources, people, and richness of biological and natural life, complicated further by social inequity and bad governance, you have understandably an explosive situation.
Five years later from when I wrote the column I mention here, which was based on a comprehensive legal and policy review conducted by a multi-disciplinary team (lawyers, economists, and environmental experts) of the Ateneo School of Government, this is the state and challenge of mining in the Philippines. Responsible mining is possible but it can only happen with the right enabling conditions. Good governance is key, transparent and fair revenue sharing is essential, and strict compliance with environmental and other laws must be absolute.
The imperatives of responsible mining is why Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Gina Lopez is right in closing down this week 21 operating mines and suspending six others. These closure and suspension decisions were done after an industry-wide environmental audit that started immediately after the inauguration of the Duterte administration and the appointment of Secretary Lopez. The mines closed were in watershed areas while those suspended were found to have violated environmental rules and regulations. Above all, no-go areas like watersheds must be completely off-limits to mining, which unfortunately is a rule that has been frequently disregarded.
President Duterte says it very well, reiterating his support of Secretary Lopez as reported by GMA 7: “You know, I support her. And there was never a time that I called her to slow down a little bit, because … on one hand is the strict implementation of the mining laws. She’s so passionate about, not about the mining laws but about the little men on the land tilling.”
The President also pointed out that Secretary Lopez was just being pro-people and pro-poor policies. His instructions to her when she was appointed, “You can have your way, just be fair and make it legal.”
The mining companies closed and suspended have of course objected to the decisions of Secretary Lopez, invoking lack of due process. As my administrative law students would know, the essence of administrative due process is notice and hearing. Although I do not know the details of each case, from what I have observed based on news reports, that basic requirement seems to have been followed. I do agree with the industry that the audit findings must be fully disclosed and the additional processes the DENR followed to arrive at a decision must likewise be explained to the public. Secretary Lopez is of course right that she is the one that must make the decision here; as long as there is substantial evidence for that decision, even if the recommendations of the audit may have been different, it is the Secretary’s decisions that should prevail.
The economic consequences of the closure and suspension decisions—to the companies, workers, local government revenues, and our GNP—have also been highlighted by critics of Secretary Lopez. This has been echoed by Finance Secretary Sonny Dominguez who is rightly concerned.
While the impact is real and the affected workers must be given a just transition, some of the claims are not justified by the evidence. For example, the projection that more than a million workers will be affected by the closures does not pass the laugh test. Economist Dr. Cielo Magno of the UP School of Economics and Bantay Kita has pointed out that official government data states that as of the third quarter of 2016, total industry employment is 219,000 and that already includes employment from the non-metallic mining sector. According to Dr. Magno: “We have 40 operating metallic mines Sec. Gina is closing about half of the operating mines. Even if she closes all the mines and multiply it by 3 to factor in indirect jobs, it won’t reach 1.2 million (that’s only 750k).” I personally think that the multiplier effect is much smaller and number of jobs lost is smaller. In any case, Secretary Lopez has promised to provide for or enable green investments alternative livelihoods.
Responsible mining requires us to be just and smart. That in my view is what Secretary Lopez is doing.
Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs
