Philippine National Conference on Mining

May 6 - 8, 2002, Baguio City, Philippines

Back E-mail Us Bottom of Page





REPORT ON THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MINING
By Engr. Catalino Corpuz, Jr.

Top of Page

In March 2002, during a national workshop on the “Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and Development” held in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, participants from mining communities were consulted on the idea of holding a national conference on mining. Their support to convene such a conference was overwhelming.

Spearheaded by Minewatch Asia-Pacific/Tebtebba Foundation, an Organizing Committee was subsequently formed to prepare and organize the conference. The Organizing Committee was composed of representatives from different 3networks active in the mining campaign: Tebtebba Foundation, The New Patriotic Movement (BAYAN), Legal Rights and Natural Resource Center (LRC-KSK), Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), DIOPIM Committee on Mining Initiative (DCMI), KALIKASAN and Center for Environmental Concerns (CEC).

With support from the Third World Network (TWN), the Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLINKS) and Mineral Policy Center (MPC), the National Conference on Mining was held last May 6-8 in Baguio City. Approximately 130 participants attended the conference, representing about 70 local community people’s organizations, and regional, national and international support groups.

Setting aside political and ideological differences, members of different networks came together, making the conference a broad gathering of people commonly working on the issue of mining. In addition, aside from representatives from the church sector, there was a substantial participation of local government officials who actively campaigned in opposing the entry of mining in their respective localities.

A. Conference Results

A strength of the conference was in meeting its objectives (Box 1) through the sharing of experiences in 11 Case Study Presentations, further sharing by participants in open forums, panel discussions on current trends and developments on the national and international levels, and further building of unity through workshop discussions. At the end of the three days, the participants came out with a Resolution to Scrap the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and a Conference Declaration.

B. What the Case Studies and Community Sharing Show

It is very ironic that seven years after the enactment of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the government’s Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) and mining corporations operating in the Philippines are now calling for “Sustainable Development through Responsible Mining”.

It was the conclusion of the Conference, upon hearing the testimonies of representatives from mining-affected communities, that:

How can there be Responsible Mining when, according to testimonies:

1. Placer Dome until now has not acknowledged its culpability in the disaster it brought to the Boac River and to the people of Marinduque, and its responsibility to undertake rehabilitation work. Instead, it has run away from this obligation. In the meantime, five more tailings dams by Marcopper are in danger of collapse.

2. In mined-out areas especially where open pit mining was used, such as by Benguet Corporation in Itogon, Benguet, rehabilitation has not been done. The promise that the land would be restored to a state better than the original and to bring back the river to its original course has become “empty words”. Instead, the mining company is slowly converting the area into a real estate and tourist project, which threatens the surrounding communities with further physical dislocation.

3. The mining company does not conduct genuine community consultation before it conducts a survey, ore sampling and exploration work on a mining project. Instead, it gathers signatures on blank papers and attaches these to applications for mining permits as proof that the community has already been consulted and given their consent for the entry of the mining corporation.

4. The mining company does not go into the tedious process of doing the required Environmental Impact Study. Instead, it contracts this out to “professional consultants” who do not involve the community in the process of scoping, etc. These “professional consultants” deliberately lie by citing that the mining project does not have adverse impacts on the environment and to the community as the proposed site is inhabited. On the basis of such studies, the mining company is granted an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). But, testimony also shows that some mining companies started their mining project without an ECC, or that they use the ECC of another mining project.

5. In Indigenous Peoples’ communities, mining companies do not secure genuine Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) of the people. Instead, they “create” datus (tribal chieftains) and tribal leaders whom they show off as proof that they have consulted with the community and been given their consent for their entry.

6. Mining companies employ divide-and-rule tactics. They create or employ their own nongovernment organization to conduct education and organizing work and set up a pro-mining bloc within the community. These groups are used to neutralize community members who oppose the entry or operation of mining companies. Those in the pro-mining bloc are offered socio-economic projects, which serve to further divide the community.

7. Communities where opposition is strong are now heavily militarized. Paramilitary groups are organized in these areas and intelligence work is intensified. Testimony shows that mining companies have even employed food blockades against the people who have barricaded entrances to their community to prevent the entry of the mining company.

Some leaders have not only been harassed, they have also been arrested and detained.

How can there be Sustainable Development when, according to testimonies:

1. Large tracts of land are being offered by government for mining operations including agricultural and protected areas. Exceptions are being made in areas declared as protected areas, thus giving access to mining companies.

2. Agriculture as an economic livelihood has lessened in mine-affected communities, as agricultural lands and water sources are destroyed due to mining. Agricultural lands are also converted to mineral lands, making mining a bigger priority than agriculture.

Water tables are contaminated, and water sources for irrigation are poisoned, destroyed or diverted.

3. Instead of the promise of more jobs, mining operations have displaced more people from their economic activity.

The 300,000 who used to be engaged in small-scale mining, which produced 30% of total gold production, have been economically dislocated. This is the result of the shift from underground to open pit mining, and the employment by some mining companies of concentrators to catch further the gold that escaped into the river system.

Farmers near the river system, where a mining operation is, are without land to till because of siltation and erosion.

Fisherfolk have less and less fish to catch as a result of siltation and water contamination.

The thousands of mine workers that used to be employed in mining companies have been reduced to a minimum due to mechanization. The majority of those who now work in the mines are contractuals; they do not have job security.

4. Mining has further caused grave health problems in affected communities.

The resulting economic deprivation in a mining community leads to poverty, which further leads to poor nutrition. Due to water and air contamination, many get sick. In Marinduque alone, 75 youth were found to have suffered from blood poisoning. In the open pit mine areas of Benguet Corporation, some women suffered miscarriages that were attributable to the air pollution in the area.

C. State of local community struggle

As a result of concerted actions by directly affected communities and their allied NGOs, church groups, scientists and, to a certain extent, local government officials, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 was not fully implemented. This also gives credence to the statement by the mining industry that the “Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is the only economic liberalization measure that has failed to benefit the economy”. In its assessment, there are three main reasons for this: legal setbacks in 1997, land use conflicts and a growing people’s movement (Tebtebba’s Briefing Paper No. 9).

According to a mining industry report, the people’s movement deterred most of the over “20 foreign mining companies that expressed interest in investing in the mining industry” (Tebtebba’s Briefing Paper No. 9). The people’s movement either stopped the entry, blocked the initial operation or delayed the operation of mining corporations, which include Mount Isa, Phelps Dodge, Western Mining Corporation, Newmont Mining, Climax, Mindex, Toronto Ventures Inc., Rio Tinto Zinc, Normandy Asia Phils., Barrick Gold Phils. Inc., Newcrest, Billiton etc.

As a result of the strong people’s movement, some provincial governments took the stand of the people by promulgating Ordinances and Resolutions that call for a ban or a moratorium on mining in their provinces. Again, this helped a lot in deterring the entry of mining corporations.

Also of great help is direct campaigning and lobbying on the international level with the assistance of international support groups.

The legal setbacks suffered by the mining industry in 1997 which contributed in blocking the entry of mining TNC’s were: 1) the filing of a case with the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the FTAA, 2) the passage of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), and 3) the declaration of the Oil Deregulation Law as unconstitutional.

D. State of the mining industry

The MGB and the mining industry envision a “Competitive and Prosperous Mining Industry”. Since the enactment of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has approved 169 Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs), 64 Exploration Permits (EPs) and 2 Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs); these cover an aggregate land area of 758,000 hectares. In addition, as of December 2001, there are 2,347 applications which include 43 FTAAs; 1,578 MPSAs; 380 EPs and 346 Ips; these are pending or being processed. The 43 FTAA applications cover an area of about 2.2 million hectares.

From a peak of 21 million hectares or 70% of the country’s total 30 million-hectare land area that were covered by applications in 1996 and 1997, the area now being applied for is down to only more than 3 million hectares. This is a concrete victory for the people’s movement.

The approved and pending mining applications show the areas which the mining industry wants to mine -– what it calls 10 “world-class” ore deposits — and where it wants to do continuous exploration work for ore deposits.

To assist the mining industry to exploit the so-called 10 “world-class ore deposits”, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau drafted a National Minerals Policy, which the mining industry is urging the President to endorse through a Presidential Memorandum Order. The National Minerals Policy highly recommends the destructive Submarine Tailings Disposal system as a viable and advanced technology for waste disposal.

E. Need to maintain vigilance

While the mining industry acknowledges its setbacks over the past years, this does not mean that communities have been able to stop mining companies’ appetite to exploit the country’s mineral resources.

Since the implementation of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the mining industry must have accomplished something. The development of a mine involves a long gestation period before it becomes productive. Over the last seven years, the mining industry must have made an assessment of the volume and quality of the country’s mineral resources, and some must have already made Financial Feasibility Studies which show that some areas are financially viable for development and actual mining. Thus, the recommendation to exploit the so-called 10 “world-class ore deposits”, which the MGB and the mining industry say will lead to a lean and mean but highly competitive mining industry.

The reason why the mining industry is pushing for the Presidential endorsement of the draft National Mineral Policy is to hasten the resolution of many of our conflicting laws through the Executive branch. Resolving this through Congress would take a long time.

The mining industry also proposes the formulation of a National Land Use Policy and that it be an active participant in framing this policy. The industry wants mineral-rich areas to be declared as Strategic Mineral Development Zones (SMDZ’s).

These two measures are stop-gap measures which will allow mining corporations to access and exploit our mineral resources. However, a long-term plan is in the works by 2004, the President having committed to allow Charter change when her term ends in that year. With Charter change, the barriers now besetting the mining industry to land access, dealing with indigenous peoples, full control of investment, would be strategically resolved in their favor.

F. Alternative, what lies ahead

The main resolution of the National Conference on Mining is the call to “Scrap the Philippine Mining Act of 1995”. It is the embodiment of the interest of the Filipino people who are directly and indirectly affected by mining.

In addition to the scrapping of this law, the Conference Declaration also calls for a moratorium on the opening of new large mines and the expansion of existing ones until a pro-people alternative to the Mining Act can be legislated.

Our proposed alternative is a policy on mining that responds to the needs of the Filipino people and not the international market and to solve the ailing economic and social situation of the country. This calls for the formulation of an Economic Plan that will stabilize the economy, provide jobs, assure food security and a livable environment. This Economic Plan should be implemented at our pace and capability. Under this Economic Plan, agriculture should be strengthened, and national industrialization, initiated. It is within this Economic Plan that the role of the mining industry will be defined.

G. Need to strengthen regional network in Asia and Oceania

The initiatives of the mining industry in Asia and Oceania must be met with one voice in order that we can be more effective against the exploitation by mining TNC’s of our mineral resources, against the environmental disasters that go with exploitation, and against the violation of basic human rights.

The holding of national conferences on mining issues in India, Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere contributes to the analysis of problems, formulating strategies and deterring the abuse of mining TNC’s.

The holding of an International Workshop on Mining during the WSSD Prep-Com IV in Bali, Indonesia provides an opportunity for mining activists to gather once again in an international forum to discuss matters of campaign strategy on the issue of mining on a wider scale.

But like our counterparts in Africa and Latin America, we, representatives from Asia and Oceania, can maximize this opportunity to discuss matters of common concern and to raise one voice for the mining industry to hear — that there can be no such thing as “Sustainable Development through Responsible Mining” as long as Southern countries are used by industrialized countries as their resource base, as long as trade inequality exists between rich and poor countries, and as long as debt is used to impose disadvantageous policies.


Engr. Catalino Corpuz is the Convenor of MineWatch Asia Pacific and is the Campaign Officaer of Tebtebba Foundation.




THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MINING
By Engr. Catalino Corpuz, Jr.

Top of Page

Major initiatives have been taken by the mining industry in the past decade. Most notable was the effort to influence national governments to privatize and liberalize their mining industries. The most recent one is the Global Mining Initiative, which is well organized, well funded and dangerous.

These initiatives can best be understood in the context of what besets the mining industry. Gone are the days when mining was a very lucrative and stable investment. Gone too are the days when companies could easily fool mining-affected communities with promises of benefits from their mining operation and of restoring mined-out areas to their original state, or even better. These unfulfilled promises have frustrated and angered community people. The hard reality is that mining corporations simply exhaust the mineral resources and leave behind a legacy of environmental devastation, economic dislocation and grave social problems. The burden of dealing with these is left solely to the community.

The mining industry’s indifference and insensitivity have led to a groundswell of community protests. It has galvanized strong anti-mining sentiments among affected communities, which have been expressed in calls ranging from “stop on-going mining operations” to a “moratorium in opening up new mining areas” and, in the extreme, a “total ban on mining.”

This has led to national, regional and international alliances of mining-affected communities, strongly supported by socially oriented non-governmental organizations and institutions.

The manifestation of neo-liberalism in the mining industry is seen in the revision of mining codes in more than 70 countries, which has further fanned the antagonism against the industry. The new mining codes were formulated by national governments with prodding from well-organized lobbies by major big mining corporations and multinational financial institutions. This led to the privatization of state-controlled mining companies and the creation of laws and mechanisms which allow the free flow of foreign investments in mining. Foreign mining companies took control of local mining corporations. Environmental laws were relaxed as Southern countries competed for badly needed foreign investments. This resulted in the opening up of new areas for mining, particularly in indigenous peoples’ territories. Some successes have been achieved against the intrusion of mining corporations in several communities. Despite this, the threat of encroachment still exists, as the laws to allow them to do so are in place.

Aside from the mining industry’s indifference and insensitivity, some worldwide developments have contributed to the escalation of protests from the community to the international level. The mining industry has been under attack since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. The awareness that the Rio Summit has created is an important development. It raised the environmental awareness of development NGOs and peoples’ movements. It also raised the awareness of environmental NGOs on development issues. In many countries, the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) became an important instrument for community people in their fight against mining corporations.

The indigenous peoples’ widespread assertion of their rights, especially to land and natural resources, provided a more militant color to the mining campaigns. The principle of Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) was another important tool used by the communities. Lawsuits against big mining corporations, such as Freeport, Placer Dome and BHP, were filed and corporate accountability became a key demand of mining activists.

The mining industry was slowly being isolated and confidence in mining investments significantly waned. The Busang fraud incident in Indonesia led to the further erosion of confidence in investing in the industry. Major disasters, such as cyanide spills and the breakage of tailings dams, and human rights violations committed by big multinational mining corporations (Rio Tinto, Placer Dome and Freeport) painted a very bad image of the industry. The sustained community struggles prevented the industry from becoming more profitable and limited their areas of operation.

Compounding the problem was the fall of prices of metals. This was due to the worldwide recession that kept to a low level the demand for metals. Several big mining corporations closed down some of their branches and subsidiaries and streamlined their operations. Many mining projects were shelved, cancelled, or postponed, as companies waited for metal prices to go up. Mining corporations have been very selective in opening up new projects, selecting only those that will be profitable.

Meanwhile, mergers and acquisitions occurred in the industry. The big ones such as Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, Placer Dome, BHP, Newmont, Phelps Dodge etc. stayed dominant. But for them to continue “business as usual”, they needed new sources of funding for their mining projects and solve the swelling resistance to their mining operations.

It is within this context that ten major multinational mining corporations have banded together to launch a new initiative: the Global Mining Initiative (GMI). The main objective is to gain and bring back public trust, confidence and credibility in the industry so that mining investments will once again pour in and multi-lateral financial institutions will be induced to provide more loans for mining operations.

To attain this main objective, the GMI presents a new paradigm of “Sustainable and Responsible Mining”. Clearly this is an effort to greenwash the industry. It includes a two-year action program called the Mines, Minerals and Sustainable Development(MMSD)project.

One clear approach used is the cooptation of strong community leaders and their allies through so-called dialogues and participatory processes. The MSSD program will culminate at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa, with a presentation of a research output that would absolve their wrongdoing in the past.

It is not a coincidence that the World Bank and the United Nations have called for a review of the extractive industry. It is not also a mere coincidence that the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have made a review of their policy on indigenous peoples. All of these happened in the year 2001. Changes in policies seemed to favor the industry more rather than uphold the basic rights of affected people. As shown by the World Bank’s review of its Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples, it is biased more towards exclusion of a free and prior informed consent provision from its revised policy. This aggressive public relations salvo by the mining industry is a source of worry for mining-affected communities and their allies. In 2001 regional and international conferences were held to assess and analyze the Global Mining Initiative and the MMSD project and see what these mean for affected communities. The challenge confronting mining-affected communities and their allies can be summarized thus:

In the Philippines, the mining industry presented an assessment during the Mining Philippines 2001 Conference on November 21–22, 2001, in which it declared: “The Mining Act of 1995 now stands as the only economic liberalization measure that has failed to benefit the economy”.

Mines and Geosciences Bureau Director Horacio C. Ramos reported in the same conference that “since the promulgation of the Mining Act of 1995, there are only 169 Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs), 64 Exploration Permits (EPs) and 2 Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs) that were approved covering a total land area of 758,000 hectares.” At the height of government efforts to attract foreign mining investors, around 70 percent of the country’s total land area was covered for applications. As of December 2001, there were 2,347 applications which included 43 FTAAs, 1,578 MPSAs, 380 EPs and 346 IPs which are pending or being processed. The 43 FTAA applications cover an area of about 2.2 million hectares.

The Filipino people’s campaign against the Mining Act of 1995 was sustained through massive education and information activities reflected in the following initiatives:

The intensification of people’s efforts to defend their communities is met with militarization. The mining industry, on the other hand, launched education and information campaigns in response to issues raised against them. They claim that they are now on a paradigm shift which is reflected in a National Minerals Policy within the framework of what they call “Sustainable and Responsible Mining”.

Between 1997 – 1999, several foreign mining companies, such as Western Mining Corporation, Rio Tinto Explorations Phils., Newmont Phils. Inc., Normandy Asia Phils. Inc., Barrick Gold Phils. Inc., Newcrest, Billiton etc. have closed down their Philippine operations. This is due to the slow processing of mining applications as a result of legal impediments, people’s direct actions, problems in the bureaucracy and political instability.

The national dailies reported on March 8, 2002 that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is being urged by foreign business chambers of the United States, Japan, Australia-New Zealand, Canada, Europe and Korea to:

1. endorse a National Policy on Mining through a Presidential Memorandum Order;

2. resolve as soon as possible the constitutional question filed against the Mining Act of 1995; and

3. mandate and empower the Mines and Geosciences Bureau to set up a speedy efficient titling processing system.

If the President gives in to the pressure by foreign business chambers, this will be bad news for mining-affected communities. She can opt to issue a Presidential Memorandum Order, and this is not remote as she was one of the four senators who fought for the approval of the Mining Act of 1995. With several Supreme Court Justices about to retire, we may soon have a situation where her appointees will comprise the majority. Then the resolution of the constitutional question of the FTAA in favor of mining corporations could happen. This situation poses a great challenge to all of us. We need to heighten our unity and close ranks to advance further the gains we have already achieved in our struggle against the mining industry, both on the national and international levels.


Engr, Catalino Corpuz, Jr. is the Convenor of Minewatch Asia-Pacific and the Campaigns Officer of Tebtebba Foundation.




DRAFT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
National Conference on Mining
May 6 - 8, 2002

Top of Page

We, participants to the National Conference on Mining held in Baguio City from the 6th to the 9th of May 2002,

Representing a broad range of people’s organizations and alliances, indigenous communities, church groups, and other non-governmental organizations from different parts of the Philippines;

Peasants, workers, scientists, environmentalists, doctors, lawyers, local government officials, mass media practitioners, organizers, and activists in our respective areas; United in our commitment to uphold our people’s interests and welfare in the face of adverse forces;

Gathered together to collectively consider the situation and problems brought about by large mining operations in our country, and the environment of neo-liberal globalization in which these take place;

Advance the following analysis and declare our position on the issue of imperialist mining and the impact it has had on our land and our people.

Mining has had a long history in our country. Small-scale mining has been practiced by Philippine peoples for more than a millennium, and large mining by foreign firms and their domestic counterparts for more than a century.

Despite decades of imperialist plunder, our country’s mineral resources remain rich. Towards the close of the last decade, its major mineral reserves still included more than 200 million metric tons of gold ore, almost five billion metric tons of copper ore, over a billion metric tons of nickel-bearing ore, and nearly 35 billion metric tons of lime, clay, silica, and other non-metallic minerals. At least ten of the ore bodies located within its shores are regarded as world-class deposits.

In recent years, this mineral wealth has attracted the interest of many transnational corporations, several of them world giants in the mining industry: BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, Placer Dome, WMC, Newmont, and Phelps Dodge. Together with somewhat smaller TNCs like Oxiana, Climax Arimco, TVI Pacific, and Philex Gold, these giants have applied for Exploration Permits and Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements that cover millions of hectares of Philippine territory. Approved applications for ExPs cover 290,624 hectares, and those for FTAAs cover 54,385 hectares. TNCs like Crew Development have also transacted deals with Filipino firms like Aglubang Mining, Lepanto Consolidated, Benguet Corporation, and Sagittarius Mines for the operation of Mineral Production Sharing Agreements. Approved applications for MPSAs cover another 249,036 hectares.

Large mining TNCs have been in the Philippines for quite some time. But it is only since the Mining Act of 1995 took effect that TNC applications for rights to explore and contracts to exploit Philippine mineral resources have proliferated. The Mining Act is one in a series of laws whose passage in different countries has been orchestrated by the World Bank for the explicit purpose of liberalizing the policy environment surrounding large mining. Like the other countries’ laws, it caters to mining TNCs who want to fully globalize their operations.

The operations of mining TNCs have been responsible for impoverishing many Third World countries. Along with their domestic counterparts in large mining, TNCs have used up the unrenewable resources of underdeveloped countries. By wiping out forests, destroying groundwater systems, poisoning streams, silting up rivers, ruining pastures and croplands, and polluting the seas, they have deprived these countries’ tribal and peasant populations of land and subsistence. Quickly depleting the resource-base for their operations, they have been able to provide local labor with only short or, at best, medium-term employment.

They have exploited laborers, paying them low wages, and subjecting them to unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. In contaminating even the air around their minesites with toxic pollutants, they have spread disease to countless communities. This has not only taxed the meager health-care resources of the communities; it has increased the burden, shouldered mostly by women, for the care of children.

Our people’s experiences with imperialist mining are no different from the experiences of others.

How is it, then, that in this country and others, large mining TNCs and their local cohorts can even dare to claim that they are champions of development – indeed, of sustainable development?

The TNCs and their local cohorts make it appear that they have made a paradigm shift and adopted a program for sustainable and responsible mining. Internationally, they promote their new image by convening “multi-stakeholder dialogues” under the Global Mining Initiative; the Mines, Minerals, and Sustainable Development Project; the International Council for Mining and Metals; etc. The MMSD was a one-sided initiative of some mining executives and financed by the industry. Its agenda serves their ends. We who are the people most affected by mining did not endorse it or participate in it. We had no hand in the formulation of its agenda. The MMSD has no legitimate claim to be a multi-stakeholder dialogue. We fear the central purpose of GMI and MMSD is not to move towards a sustainable relationship upon the Earth but simply to sustain and ensure the future of a few mining corporations.

We know many of the companies behind the GMI, the MMSD project and the ICMM because they are the very same ones that are exploiting us and our land in a wasteful and unsustainable way or are seeking, even at this time, to acquire “rights” over our lands and against our wishes through tricks, deceit, intimidation, militarization and abuse. We know and condemn the practice of Western Mining Corporation in South Cotabato, Rio Tinto in Zamboanga, Anglo-American in Surigao, BHP in Aurora, Luzon and Mindanao, Newmont in the Cordillera and Placer Dome in Marinduque. We have learned we have no basis to trust them or other companies. We urge all to examine the reality of mining rather than the promises and claims of industry propagandists.

In our country, their image-promotions campaign is the work of the Philippine Chamber of Mines. They are aided in this campaign by no less than the President of the Republic and the officials of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Deception is the name of the game. And the large mining firms, both TNC and domestic, are experts at it.

It is through deception, coupled with bribery, that these firms have gotten around the very laws which allow them access to our people’s patrimony. For example, the Mining Act of 1995 requires the consent of indigenous communities to mining operations on ancestral land.

To circumvent this requirement, TNCs have gotten officers of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to declare that their mining applications do not cover ancestral lands, when, in fact, these do.

To comply with a similar requirement imposed by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, TNCs have organized fake tribal councils who can sign for them documents of Free and Prior Informed Consent. It is by making false promises of sizeable monetary returns, livelihood development, and gainful employment that they are able to persuade people into joining these so-called tribal councils. The same promises have earned large mining projects the support of traditional leaders and barangay councils in poor peasant villages where farmers and fisherfolk have become desperate for opportunities for material upliftment.

Along with bribes, such promises have also enticed local government units into endorsing or even facilitating the projects of the TNCs and their domestic counterparts in large mining. LGU endorsement is required by the Local Government Code. False assurances of environmental compliance have worked as well.

But the TNCs and their local cohorts have clearly not succeeded in deceiving the majority of the communities and people’s organizations in the areas where they wish to operate.

Where their lies have failed, they have resorted to violence.

The present regime’s militarist policies foster the use of violence against tribal and peasant communities, environmental and social activists, who have risen in protest against large mining by TNCs and their domestic counterparts. The state, as well as local politicos and the mining companies themselves, have used the Armed Forces of the Philippines, various paramilitary formations, private armies, pseudo-revolutionary armados, vigilante groups, fanatic cults, and criminal gangs to kill or threaten people who put up a resistance to large mining, and to drive small-scale miners out of mineral-rich areas.

Their image-promotions campaign, pay-offs, and financing of terror must cost the TNCs and their local cohorts huge sums of money. But the expense will surely prove tiny in comparison to the profits that they can expect to reap. The Mining Act of 1995 assures them of this. Among the guarantees it provides transnational operators of FTAAs, in particular, are duty-free importation of capital equipment; a tax holiday covering the first four to six years of operations; after this, taxation based on accelerated depreciation; full repatriation of investments and earnings. Imposing only minimal occupation and waste disposal fees on both FTAA and MPSA operators, the Mining Act places the burden of dealing with practically all the environmental costs of large mining not on the shoulders of the mine operators, but on the shoulders of our people.

It is us, the Filipino people, who have to deal with the devastation of our forest, aquatic, and agricultural resources. It is our communities who have to deal with the diseases that result from mining pollution. It is our families, and especially our women, who have to tend all the children who fall ill.

The damage that imperialist mining inflicts on us and our land will be permanent. Our peasantry will find it extremely difficult to survive being dispossessed of their means of livelihood. Our indigenous peoples will be unable to endure the trauma of being dislocated from their ancestral lands, of seeing their communities dismembered, and of having their cultures destroyed. Our workers will never be able to recover the use of limbs that have been broken as a result of mining injuries, or the health of lungs that have been invaded by mine dust. Our families will never be able to bring back to life all those who have died from the violence perpetrated for the sake of imperialist mining.

Knowing all these, we commit ourselves to persisting in our resistance to imperialist mining. And we forward the following calls.

1. Scrap the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and all anti-people mining laws! Effect a moratorium on the opening of new large mines and the expansion of existing ones until a pro-people alternative to the said Mining Act can be legislated.

2. Cancel all FTAAs, MPSAs, Exploration Permits, and other instruments, licenses, or contracts issued to TNCs and their domestic counterparts in large mining. Declare a moratorium on the processing of large mining applications.

3. Guarantee adequate separation pay and benefits for workers retrenched from mining operations which are discontinued as a result of the foregoing.

4. Guarantee justice and indemnification for all victims of imperialist mining – including disabled workers; dispossessed peasants; displaced communities; persons who have suffered diseases that have been caused by large mining operations; persons who have been harmed and families who have suffered death in the violence that has surrounded large mining projects.

5. Hold mining companies responsible and accountable for the rehabilitation of land and other resources ravaged by their operations.

6. Restore the land and its resources to the people. Effect genuine land reform.

7. Recognize and respect the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands, to ancestral domain, and to self-determination.

8. Uphold the social and economic, civil and political rights of all democratic sectors of Philippine society vis-à-vis the threat that imperialist mining poses to the exercise of these rights.

9. Assert the sovereignty of the Filipino people! Junk pro-imperialist policies! Oppose imperialist globalization!

10. Develop an alternative mining industry in the framework of nationalist industrialization.

11. Condemn the initiatives of the international mining industry including the GMI and MMSD as mere propaganda exercises aimed not to improve their mining practices but to restore their credibility destroyed by the many social and environmental disasters caused by their operations.



CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
National Conference on Mining
May 6 - 8, 2002

Top of Page

1. RESOLUTION TO SCRAP THE PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995

Seven years ago, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or Republic Act 7942 was passed by the Philippine government. The Act was devised upon the behest of mining companies and on the recommendation of international financing agencies such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Development Program. Its approval paved the way for the entry of giant foreign mining corporations into the country to explore and exploit the mineral resources of the Filipino people.

The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is a violation of the Constitution. The law allows the entry of big foreign mining corporations into the Philippine mining industry through the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA). Under this agreement, foreigners are allowed 100% equity in the investing company, and are granted a maximum area per FTAA of 81,000 hectares of mineral land to mine for a period of 50 years. Aside from these, they are given numerous benefits to ensure their profitability. These benefits include tax holidays, 100% repatriation of capital and profits, and rights to guarantee unhampered mining operations such as water rights, timber rights and easement rights.

The Philippine Mining Act is an unjust law. It has allowed multinational mining corporations to rob the Filipino people of their patrimony, while denying the people their rights to land, life and resources. It has resulted in mining operations that destroy the environment and deprive the people of the basis of their survival. It is a violation of the Filipino peoples’ sovereign and democratic rights and a denial of the indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral land and to self-determination.

On these bases we, participants to the National Conference on Mining, call for the scrapping of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. We further demand that the Philippine government cancel the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements and large-scale commercial mining permits it has already entered into with foreign mining corporations, and that no new FTAA applications and mining contracts be approved hereafter.

Passed on 08 May 2002 during the Philippine National Mining Conference, Baguio City, Philippies.


2. LOCAL RESOLUTIONS

  1. Cancel the Exploration Permit of Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (Marcopper).
  2. Cancel the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement of Industries Development Corporation.
  3. Cancel the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement of Lepanto Mining Corporation.
  4. Stop the expansion of Lepanto Mining Corporation in Victoria, Mankayan, Benguet Province.
  5. Cancel the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement of TVI Pacific in Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte.
  6. Cancel the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement of Climax Arimco Mining Corporation in Didipio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya Province.
  7. Oppose the renewal of the Exploration Permit of OMNI Mines Development Corporation.
  8. Support the declaration of a moratorium on operations of CREW Development in Oriental Mindoro.
  9. Oppose the entry of any mining operations in Aurora Province.
  10. Stop carbon mining in Isabela Province.
  11. Discontinue the operation of Western Mining/Saguitarius Mining in Far South Mindanao and respect the rights of indigenous peoples.
  12. Stop the marble quarrying of Absalon Industry Multipurpose Cooperative in Zamboanga del Sur.
  13. Oppose the signing of any agreement that will give corporations the right to destroy communities and their environment, such as the transfer and selling of the rights of Western Mining Corporation to other companies to mine in Columbio, Sultan Kudarat Province.
  14. Scrap agreements between Western Mining Corporation and local government officials of Columbio, Sultan Kudarat Province.
  15. Implement projects that will benefit the people of Columbio, Sultan Kudarat Province, and not foreign capitalists.
  16. Urge Marcopper/Placer Dome to immediately continue the payment of damage compensation claims for the years 1997 and 1998 to the 32 remaining barangays of Boac, Marinduque Province affected by the 1996 mine spill, through the Environmental Guarantee Fund Committee.
  17. Condemn the use of the Philippine Army, RPA-ABB, Civilian Armed Force Geographical Units (CAFGU), Private Armies and other Paramilitary Units in quelling the resistance of communities affected by mining operations or those covered by mining claims.
  18. Stop the harassment of peasant leaders.
  19. Stop militarization in Oriental Mindoro.
  20. Condemn continuing violations of human rights in the country.
  21. Indemnify all victims of militarization
  22. Oppose the RP-US Balikatan exercises and urge the immediate pull-out of American troops.



Back E-mail Us Top of Page