Mining without the emotions
What do you make of a debate where both sides accuse each other of lying, even as both sides also quote passages from the Bible to make their respective points? Last Friday’s lively forum on the economic and ecological effects of mining sponsored by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Management Association of the Philippines and Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines highlighted the seemingly unbridgeable divide characterizing the mining debate in this country.
One thing clear to me about this acrimonious debate is that emotions should have no place in the attempt to find its appropriate resolution. Tagging people as “pro-mining” and “anti-mining” doesn’t help; “proponents” and “critics” may be more accurate (and less divisive) labels. Proponents may be inadvertently alienating their potentially most effective allies when those who see problems in the industry are automatically labeled “anti-mining.” This led, for example, to the unfortunate boycott by the Chamber of Mines of a small forum at the School of Government of the Ateneo de Manila University (ASoG) last November, which was little more than an honest exercise to peer-review research papers the school had commissioned on various topics concerning the industry.
Contrary to some impressions, the Chamber had always been invited to that forum. Dean Tony La Viña precisely wanted both sides to critique the draft papers, to rid them of undue bias. He was thus rather pained by what he felt to be unfair accusations against the forum and the school he leads. I saw the exchange of e-mails that led to the boycott and the subsequent half-page ad attacking the forum. It seemed that the Chamber had misunderstood the forum’s purpose, and branded all speakers therein as “anti-mining,” thereby deciding that there was no point in participating. The whole episode saddened me, as I had always seen Dean La Viña as an effective ally of the mining industry with how he constantly sought ways to make it widely acceptable and find win-win solutions.
On the other hand, the international mining conference held at the Ateneo de Davao University (ADDU) last January was admittedly something else, as it was openly critical of the industry—even “anti-mining” in its stance—from its very inception. While I respect the organizers’ decision to keep it one-sided, I thought the deliberate exclusion of industry proponents was counterproductive. In contrast to the ASoG forum where the Chamber was invited but refused to come, here the Chamber asked to join to be able to present the industry’s perspective, but was flatly rejected. I felt this stance to have undermined the critics’ own cause, as it could alienate rather than win over those whose minds remain open. Nor does it help when we hear reports, true or not, that some members of the Catholic clergy have withheld the sacraments from families deriving employment and livelihood from mining, on the grounds that it is a “sinful” occupation.
A sound discussion on an issue as critical as mining must necessarily be dispassionate and freed from emotions and from impressions and perceptions not grounded on facts. Amid the large volume of claims and assertions on both sides, we need to distill hard facts from mere claims, untruths and half-truths—and there are many flying about, as last Friday’s forum showed. Some basic points are by now well agreed. One, current laws pertaining to the sector have flawed provisions that are inadequate, ambiguous, inconsistent or unfair. To proponents, this has impeded investments; to critics, this has compromised governance and led to undesirable outcomes. Either way, the situation cries out for correction, which the new policy being awaited from government will seek to provide.
Two, poverty has remained prevalent, and in many places had worsened, around mining areas, and the causes of this—which need not be blamed on the industry itself—must be well understood. And they must be addressed by both government and the industry; one working without the other will not work.
Three, environmental damages and risks associated with mining activities have been too disturbing to ignore, and like poverty, must be brought down to socially acceptable levels if impossible to avoid completely. To stop mining activity altogether because there are associated risks of damage and disaster is both unwarranted and unrealistic (though I know some would dispute this). What is essential is to ensure that the level of damage and risk is kept to a level deemed by society to be acceptable. Airline travel thrives despite air pollution from planes and the very real risk of disastrous plane crashes, because the levels of damage and risk are deemed small enough to be acceptable. In mining, the public needs to reach a level of confidence that the risks and damages are small enough to be acceptable; unfortunately, our historical track record makes this extremely difficult. But it is not impossible; technology has advanced, after all, and governance is improving.
Come what may, the much-anticipated EO, when it comes out, is almost certain to have neither side rejoicing. But compromise, not tyranny by the majority or the minority, is the stuff of democracy. Mining is an issue for which extreme positions simply cannot be tenable. Both proponents and critics should be prepared to yield some ground. I thought I saw some of that last Friday, even as speakers appeared at times to be digging in their heels. But we have to set aside the emotions from the discourse and together work for a mining industry that serves the greater good for the greatest number.
* * *
E-mail: [email protected]
