Points for mining industry to consider

With the discussions on mining gaining more media attention and with statements and positions emerging from various institutions, the past polarization of advocates and critics—pros and antis—is being lifted out of previous discussions and reenacted in soap opera fashion. We need to go deeper than the argument that we all use metal, anyway, in our daily lives, as this should instead reinforce the need to reduce, recycle and reuse.

The pro-mining camp presents itself as vital to national economic development. Investments are massive and long-term; returns are in employment and services, and also in building schools for the poor and caring for the environment. A percentile of profit is shared with communities on the land, more than they can absorb for their betterment. Ironically for the industry, this fuels ever more angry opposition.

The anti-mining camp defines disbelief in the industry and that “nothing has changed”; criticism of mining is no longer simply aligned with the Left. Church groups are fed up with the process, and bishops don’t want to be monitoring mines. Arguably, they do a better job than enforcers by nagging urban society to broader accountabilities of not wasting the life and livelihood of generations.

Internationally, mining executives reflect the gross inequalities that the Occupy Wall Street movement represents. Environmental statements are not secure or binding, and responses are viewed as too little too late. Yet, one corporation cannot pay for the mistakes or abuses of another. We have to move the argument forward; is there no way the industry can recover an acceptable role in society and the economy?

More discerning questions and concerns are emerging on the environmental, social, and economic impact of mining in relation to governance and the competence to enforce and regulate. Production sharing, for the fuss made, is inordinately low; actual economic contribution bears questioning, and both need painful readjustment. The basic rights of indigenous peoples have again halted with the deferment of the titling process, raising concerns on further exposure of their areas to greater risks from all resource extraction activities and land-grabbing. Are there any real limits to mining? These are questions and concerns not for government alone, but also for the industry.

The economics of mining has to change, and change globally. It will hurt. Neither oil nor coal extraction pays for environmental costs, though speculation and processing increases are hurting; we do not expect mining to do so soon. Global economic and political powers are only now struggling with China’s cornering of the rare minerals’ market and production, including the contaminative processing. It is going to be an even greater struggle to get the wealth of mineral magnates to manage their footprints as they take more than photos.

The industry will not be able to buy and bully its way forever. Local governments are challenging effectively the powers of old, and there is increasing spawning of no-go mining areas; squash one and other points of resistance emerge. The economic status quo is not going to work. A moratorium will also not work unless we develop systems of capacity, taxes, security of people (stop dividing them and bribing some), and effective responses to generational environmental loss of areas and resources, acid leakage, and imminent disaster.

Mining will continue, but the industry needs to brace itself for more opposition, as its acceptability will continue to be questioned relentlessly as responses are inadequate. The mining industry is still not coming to the table, still not acknowledging past mistakes, still not assuring the national and international self-policing demanded.

A major turnaround in social and environmental costing and the limits to mining must be made in this island landscape. This, the industry cannot ignore. How can the industry sufficiently pay for the impact in justified areas yet remain profitable?

Can Manuel V. Pangilinan, chair of Philex Mining Corp., make a difference? He is not a miner by profession but has shown a level of economic contribution to Philippine society that is generally valued. Can he bridge the credibility gap, give the confidence and commitment needed to make the difference?

While a new executive order from Malacañang is awaited that is hoped to accommodate concerns raised from various sectors, it will not necessarily address these major changes that need to take place.

In its bid to gain acceptability, the industry must be prepared to incorporate painful reductions in its profit bottom lines. Social acceptability cannot just be about social development programs as they are currently designed. Roads, hospitals, scholarships, day care centers, schools are not enough. Local governments do not want to live by doles that suffocate their initiative as people.

Much more difficult responses are being asked of the industry: where and how mine wastes and tailings are disposed, how quality water sources for domestic and irrigation needs are assured, how forest and biodiversity losses are addressed, how the impact of climate change is not further exacerbated, how engagements with indigenous communities do not fracture cultural integrity, how economic benefits genuinely translate to human development, and how capacities are built in society that move the country forward.

Pedro Walpole, SJ, is director of Environmental Science for Social Change (https://essc.org.ph/).