It is good that experts and those in mining have come forward to give their side in the debate. The public deserves to be informed, not misled. The mining industry’s biggest merit, if done rightly, is to help alleviate poverty in the Philippines.
Countries like Australia, South Africa, Canada and Brazil owe much of their economic prosperity because they used their mining card wisely.
During President FVR’s government, he saw it as an area that offered great potential for lifting the country’s economy and would have been enough to solve the problem of wide scale poverty that we deplore mostly when a new government is elected.
There was great excitement then. I remember the talk on possibilities: if the “Middle East has oil, Philippines has its minerals.” That was how big the potential was and why President FVR pushed for a new Mining Law that would open the doors to the big boys of the mining world and address the concerns of poor local communities as well.
“The Philippines is endowed with rich deposits of gold and other minerals, but its mining industry has been fading for years. Ten major mines shut down between 1985 and 1993, and mine employment fell from 16,000 in 1988 to 7,500 in 1994. The decline, experts say, is due to primitive technology, the small scale of mine operations and the absence of a clear government policy on mine development. To correct these perceived deficiencies, the Philippine Congress passed a new mining code in 1995,” writes Steve Rogers.
At the time of the discussions on how to revitalize mining, Joel Muyco was the Director of Mines and among those who led in crafting the law that would address both concerns.
The law would embody the philosophy of responsible mining. It has been described by experts as one of the best mining laws in the world.
It took eight years to have the law approved after much discussion in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I can imagine the hard work and the patience that went into it. Still critics were not satisfied. They brought it before the Supreme Court and after three more years of discussions, the New Mining Law to tap the country’s mineral wealth was finally declared constitutional. But by then we had wasted enough time.
With millions of Filipinos in dire poverty and out of jobs it seems that lessons have not been learned. It is being suggested that the Mining Law of 1995 be revoked and a new one take its place. We really have a knack for failure. Who will explain that to the poor?
This new attempt against the mining law would put us back in the wastebasket as far as investors are concerned. It would be unconscionable if we allowed this to happen with our country endowed with mineral resources (by the way, these are God’s gifts) and yet wallowing in poverty.
* * *
The new DENR secretary Ramon Paje who rose from the ranks will have to do some conflict resolution about the Tampakan project.
He assured investors that the Aquino government would protect mining investments in the country, including the $5.2-billion Tampakan gold and copper project in South Cotabato.
“Tampakan is very important for us. We believe we have to protect the investment,” he said. He would try to get together the mining companies and South Cotabato province, where the project is located and agree on some “common ground.” The province has banned open-pit mining.
The Tampakan project of Sagittarius Mines Inc., is a joint venture between Xstrata Plc of Switzerland and Indophil Resources NL of Australia. It is expected to draw $5.2 billion in investment and pay as much as $7.1 billion worth of government taxes.
The Philippines would collect about $6.36 billion in excise taxes and $833.3 million in royalties within the estimated mine life of 19 years.
His instructions from President Noynoy is for the government to mediate to attain a compromise,” said Paje.
But reliable sources said that the problem of Tampacan is allegedly a political squabble between former Gov. Daisy Fuentes and the new governor. According to these sources since Fuentes, now a congresswoman, will not reap the benefit of the mine if it is opened under the new Governor so she banned open pit mining.
* * *
Some bishops would do well not to give statements with little understanding of the industry and the Mining Law that governs it. There may be exceptions but it does not deserve wholesale condemnation. It is like blaming the whole church for the sexual misdemeanors of a few wayward priests.
Fairness equally applies to matters like mining and churchmen in authority. If we are to help the poor in this country, we must do everything to make it possible to lift them out of their abject misery not just in talk but in deed.
If God has given us this immense wealth of minerals then it must be used to help the poor. Mining is compatible with the obligation to help the poor if done responsibly.
Unfortunately, responsible mining requires capital that we do not have. Indeed, problems arise when local miners, big or small, cannot comply with the law for lack of capital. There is no one from the Philippines that can come up with the capital of more than $5 billion to develop Tampakan or to turn around $7 billion worth of taxes.
* * *
While in Singapore, I bought Peter Atkins’ Galileo’s Finger. Once condemned by the church, his finger is now on display at the Florence’s history of science museum to remind us of his extraordinary valor.
“He’s a secular saint, and relics (as his finger) are an important symbol of his fight for freedom of thought,” said Paolo Galluzzi, the director of the Galileo Museum <http://www.museogalileo.it/>
In 1992, the church finally came around to admit that the judges who had convicted him of heresy had erred.
New York Times’ Rachel Donado writes that “His case is often cited as science’s first decisive blow against not only faith but also the power of the Roman Catholic Church <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org>. It is a shrine to humanism as much as to religion.
In 1992, John Paul praised Galileo for inventing the scientific method and said that the theologians of the day had erred in thinking that they should read sacred Scripture literally. He called the Galileo case one in which “a tragic, reciprocal incomprehension was interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith.”