| Home Kapatiran
Links
Contact Us
Archive
Issue Number 27/28, April 2007
|
Kapatiran Issue
No. 27/28, April 2007
MINING IN THE PHILIPPINES
CONCERNS AND CONFLICTS
Report Of A UK Fact-Finding Trip To The Philippines
July-August 2006
These extracts from the 63 page Report are reproduced
with permission. The Report can be read online at : http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Mining%20in%20the%20Philippines%20-%20Concerns%20and%20Conflicts.pdf
The UK fact finding team’s Report
aroused considerable interest in the Philippines, so much
so that Father Frank Nally, one of its authors, was
barred from entering the country for its January 2007
release, and deported. Ed
Foreword, By Clare Short MP
Having visited many developing countries and seen many
places where environmental degradation or destructive
development has damaged the livelihoods of people, I was
nevertheless deeply shocked by the negative impact of
mining in the Philippines. In July 2006 I led a team of
human rights and environmental experts on a fact finding
visit to the Philippines in order to examine the impact
of mining on the environment and people’s
livelihoods. We met with communities affected by mining
and proposals for new mines. We heard how indigenous
people had been shifted off their lands to make way for
mining and how their consultation rights had been
undermined and ignored. We saw polluted rivers, destroyed
mangrove forests, damaged coral and ruined agriculture.
We concluded that the Philippines is in danger of losing
much of its rich biodiversity and damaging the lives of
unique indigenous cultures. I believe that current plans
for mining in the Philippines should be scrapped and a
new strategy put in place which takes proper account of
the large number of jobs that already exist in small
scale mining and the need to establish criteria for
responsible development of the mining industry and
protection for the precious and unique biodiversity of
the Philippines.
During our visit, we found scant evidence of mining
benefiting local people or the country’s economy. We
believe that the Government of the Philippines and the
mining companies have failed to comply with national law
and international standards. We believe that the
Government should be challenged to demonstrate that it is
willing to adhere to its own laws and international
mining best practice by immediately refusing all mining
applications which would damage critical watersheds,
ecosystems, agriculture or fisheries or lead to serious
social disruption. We are also concerned that some of the
mining companies are based in the UK and increasingly
money raised in the City of London is being used to fund
disastrous projects.
World Bank support for an expansion of destructive mining
in the Philippines is also a matter of great concern and
given the substantial provision of funding to the World
Bank by UK taxpayers, a matter that should be taken up by
parliamentarians and the Department for International
Development. Similarly the European Union claims that its
development programmes are dedicated to the protection of
the rights of indigenous people and to a strong
commitment to sustainable development but its development
interventions in the Philippines are failing to live up
to these standards. All these development agencies should
play a bigger role in helping the Philippines protect and
restore its degraded environment and thus enhance and
provide a sustainable future for millions of poor people
working in agriculture and fisheries. We also believe
that the investor community must behave more responsibly
in their investment decisions in the Philippines. My own
conclusion from the visit was that I have never seen
anything so systematically destructive as the mining
programme in the Philippines. The environmental effects
are catastrophic as are the effects on people’s
livelihoods.
The report has been prepared by Cathal Doyle, Irish
Centre for Human Rights, Clive Wicks, a UK Member of the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s
Commission on Environmental Economic and Social Policy;
and Father Frank Nally, UK Columban Faith and Justice
Office, and takes further the conclusions that I have
outlined here. We all wish to express our solidarity with
and admiration for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference
of the Philippines which has been vocal in its public
opposition to the country’s 1995 Mining Act, local
mining practices and plans for a massive expansion of
mining.
Executive Summary
A team led by Clare Short MP, the former UK Secretary of
State for Overseas Development, visited the Philippines
in July and August 2006. The Catholic Bishops of the
Philippines attracted international attention because of
their concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the
mining industry, which has already had major negative
impacts on local communities and the environment. In
their view: “The implementation of the Mining Act
will certainly destroy both the environment and people
and will lead to national unrest”.
The team was shocked by what they heard and saw during
their visit. In its attempts to woo foreign direct
investment, the Philippines government appears willing to
circumvent its own laws protecting the environment and
human rights and reduce standards below acceptable
international practice. Internationally the World
Bank’s Extractive Industry Review [EIR], a range of
academic studies and UN reports has been highly critical
of such an approach. All identify mining companies as the
main beneficiaries of regulatory concessions in the
extractive industry, while the long-term burden of
environmental and social costs remains with the
developing countries and some of their poorest
communities.
The team recognises the external pressures on the
Philippines as a deeply indebted country to generate
foreign investment but fears that the emphasis on
export-driven mining based on foreign investment may
diminish rather than improve the possibility of a
balanced, long-term, sustainable development strategy.
The problems are exacerbated by the unresolved problems
of corruption and the fact that, again contrary to the
recommendations of the EIR, many of the proposed new
mining sites are in areas of conflict including Mindanao.
Mining in the Philippines is being developed at a speed
and scale… and in a manner likely to cause massive
long-term environmental damage and social problems.
Current mining plans will undermine the Government’s
own strategy for sustainable development by destroying or
severely damaging critical eco-systems, including
watersheds, rivers, marine eco-systems and important
agricultural production areas.
The population, currently 84 million, is expected to
reach 150 million by 2036. Maintaining the productivity
and viability of the land and marine environment is
surely the highest priority. Food shortages already
exist. The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
[MTPDP] of the National Economic and Development
Authority highlights the need to address environmental
degradation. The team fears further damage to the
environment by mining will occur and will increase the
threat to the country’s long-term food security and
the survival of future generations of Filipinos.
The Philippines is one of the 17 countries in the world
to be categorised as a mega-biodiversity country. It is
also a geo-hazard hotspot, prone to typhoons,
earthquakes, landslides and volcanoes. Its environmental
sustainability is already under serious threat with the
UN Development Programme highlighting the urgent need to
properly manage the country’s natural resources if
Millennium Development Goal 7 [MDG7] is to be achieved (i). These factors,
together with potential social impacts, should require
the Philippine government to exercise extreme caution in
authorising large-scale mining projects.
The Philippines has relatively strong laws designed to
protect the environment, communities and indigenous
peoples. The reality, however, is that where investments
are concerned the law is too often viewed as a mere
technicality to be overlooked or circumvented. Human
rights abuses and misreporting are clearly associated
with some current mining activities. It is of concern
that those in government and international agencies seem
to lack the capacity or inclination to challenge and end
such misconduct. Philippine law requires that before any
development takes place within the ancestral lands of
indigenous people they must give their free, prior,
informed consent [FPIC]. The team heard, however, that
this consent is sometimes obtained through
misinformation, misrepresentation, bribery and
intimidation. Government agencies, in particular the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples [NCIP], are,
according to indigenous people the team talked to,
failing to fulfil their mandate to protect indigenous
peoples’ rights. Many indigenous peoples view the
NCIP as siding with mining companies. They feel the need
for an independent body to ensure indigenous peoples are
adequately informed about plans to operate and expand
mines, and to assist them in representing their views.
The World Bank is implicated in the expansion of mining
in the Philippines. Despite historical problems with
mining and a legacy of 800 abandoned mines, the Bank was
one of the major actors influencing the liberalised
Mining Act of 1995. More recently, it has played a
crucial role in sponsoring and promoting the adoption of
the National Minerals Policy, the Mineral Action Plan and
the revitalisation of the mining industry. In failing to
address the negative impacts of mining plans on the poor
and marginal, the Bank is failing in its duty both to
assist with the country’s steps to sustainable
development and is failing to abide by obligations to its
own mandate and obligations under international human
rights law.
Based on the economic evidence available, the team
believes that implementation of the proposed mining plan
will bring insufficient benefits to the Filipino people.
Once incentives to mining firms have been considered and
revenues offset against the associated costs – in
particular the environmental costs – the net gain
will be far lower than that claimed by the companies and
the promoters of mining in government. The country may be
left with clean-up costs that run into billions of
dollars. Corruption is a serious problem in the
Philippines and it can be expected that plans for
extensive mining operations in remote areas requiring
licensing, regulation and monitoring will make it worse.
The Philippines currently faces a crisis of
extra-judicial killings. More than 700* activists –
including civil rights and environmental advocates –
have been killed since the current administration came to
power in 2001. Corruption and extrajudicial killings will
do untold damage to the reputation of the Philippines
worldwide, limiting its ability to promote tourism and
other sustainable activities, or responsible foreign
direct investment of any kind. * That figure was at the
time of writing. It is now closer to 900. See the lead
article in this issue for details. Ed. The following is a
summary of the recommendations the team makes. These
recommendations are informed by our various experiences,
informants in the Philippines, existing practice in other
parts of the world and emerging standards suggested by
authoritative international processes.
1. Recommended Immediate Actions By The
Philippine Government
1.1 Demonstrate that it is
willing to adhere to its own laws and to international
mining best practice and standards by
immediately cancelling all current mining applications
which will inevitably cause major environmental damage to
critical watersheds, eco-systems, agriculture or
fisheries and result in social disruption, such as those
in Midsalip Zamboanga del Sur, Mindanao, visited by the
team. This should include cases where there is strong
evidence of serious inadequacies in the consultation and
consent processes. Best international practice would also
require that:
• Mining licences should not be issued in conflict
zones as recommended by the Extractive Industry Review
(EIR).
• The precautionary approach to mining is adopted as
required by the 1992 Rio Declaration - this would require
a ban on submarine and riverine tailings disposal and
marine mining.
• No further mining licences be issued until
adequate enforceable legislation and controls are put in
place to protect the environment and the economic,
social, cultural, civil and political human rights of the
indigenous peoples and mining impacted communities.
1.2 Ensure regulation and
redress. We recommend that the Government
addresses the shift of its role from “regulator of
mining” to “active promoter of mining” by
ensuring that all relevant Government agencies confine
their activities to the impartial regulation of mining.
1.3 Revoke the 1995 Mining Act.
We suggest that the Government heeds the calls to revoke
the Mining Act of 1995 and enact alternative legislation
that more effectively protects the interests of the
affected local communities, indigenous peoples and the
environment.
1.4 Establish an independent
mining review body involving civil society and
affected communities, with the power to recommend
cancellation of mining licences.
1.5 Provide independent technical and legal
advice and support to communities and indigenous
peoples throughout the mining application phase in both
the FPIC and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
(ESIA) processes and where licences are granted,
throughout the life of the projects. The European Union
(EU) and other international donors could assist in
establishing and funding such an independent body.
1.6 Upgrade and restructure the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to
focus exclusively on the protection and development of
the Philippines environment and renewable natural
resources. A Department of Mines, Hydrocarbons and
Geosciences could deal with licensing of mining and
hydrocarbon development and ensure compliance with the
highest international technical standards. Consider
establishing an Office of Mining Ombudsman.
1.7 Strengthen legal frameworks for sustainable
development by empowering Government
departments, covering health agriculture and tourism, to
enforce standards and take appropriate action where
mining projects threaten the national strategy for
sustainable development.
1.8 Establish an inter-departmental coordinating
committee to approve all extractive industry
projects. To ensure transparency and accountability civil
society participation at committee level would be
required.
1.9 Empower local communities and civil society
to explore and pursue all avenues available within the
law, at local national and international levels, to
register their concerns and aspirations and seek redress
for wrongs caused by mining operations.
1.10 Sign up to the Extractive Industry
Transparency Initiative (EITI) and publish
details of all payments, taxes and royalties made by
mining companies. Implement EITI in accordance with the
six EITI criteria, ensuring participation by
self-selected representatives of civil society at each
stage of the process.
2. Issues Of Environmental Concern And
Sustainable Development:
2.1 Protect biodiversity and apply the
Precautionary Principle to any mining or other
high impact development to ensure that they only proceed
where there will not be significant negative impact on
the lives of the pre-existing population, the environment
or the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
2.2 We recommend that DENR
conduct regional Strategic Environmental Appraisals
(SEAs) with independent technical support and
effective participation of civil society. International
donors, including the World Bank and the EU, should
endorse and support this approach. For each mining
project proposed, joint Environmental and Social Impact
Assessments (ESIAs), open to independent verification,
should be developed with appropriate community
participation.
3. International Governance
3.1 We recommend that governments
establish binding frameworks to regulate mining,
and ensure access to courts and other effective
mechanisms of redress within the home countries of
transnational mining companies and the financial
institutions that support them.
3.2 We call on the World Bank
Group to uphold its mandate to help reduce world
poverty and protect the environment by halting its
promotion and support for mining expansion in the
Philippines under current conditions. The Bank should
assist with the country’s sustainable development by
providing technical and financial support for the
protection and development of renewable resources,
sustainable activities and poverty reduction programs and
support SEAs of the key islands and regions affected by
mining…
4. Human Rights Issues
4.1 Address Human Rights Violations. We
urge the Government to increase its efforts to stamp out
the spate of killings of politically active citizens and
prosecute the perpetrators. Independent investigations
should be conducted with invites extended to the UN Human
Rights Special Rapporteurs (Philip Alston, one such
UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, made a ten day
official investigation visit to the Philippines, in
February 2007, at the invitation of the President. See
this issue’s lead article, “Gloria’s
Inglorious Reign Of Terror” for details of the
outcome of his visit. Ed.).
4.2 The implementation of laws to protect
communities necessitates independent monitoring
of the processes of determining FPIC and community
consent. The participation in such monitoring by the
Human Rights Commission, civil society, relevant
religious and academic institutions and indigenous
peoples organizations is required to ensure credibility.
The EU and other international partners could assist in
this.
4.3 Ratification of international treaties.
In keeping with the spirit of the Philippine
Constitutional provisions (1987) and Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act (1997) we recommend that the
Philippine Government ratifies International Labour
Organisation Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples and supports the Declaration on Indigenous
Peoples in the next UN General Assembly vote.
4.4 Prior claims. In line with the 1987
constitutional recognition of prior indigenous
peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands we urge the
Government to end the contradictory practice of allowing
the proposition that mining companies can assert prior
rights claims over indigenous peoples’ (the
traditional owners/occupiers of the land) ancestral
lands.
4.5 European Union should place an
emphasis on ensuring that FPIC is effectively
incorporated as a core element of the 2007-2013 European
Commission’s Philippines Country Strategy Paper in
its midterm review. It should exert its good offices to
reduce tension and promote dialogue and a strict
adherence to legal process and informed decision-making.
5. Financing
5.1 We urge mining companies and
the investor community to exercise extreme caution
in funding any mining operations in the Philippines until
effective structures, laws and controls are in place to
protect the environment and human rights. They should
improve methods of exercising due diligence over
investments in mining projects based on reliable
independent information.
5.2 Financial probity. We encourage
financial institutions to adopt and adhere to the Equator
Principles, and governments in the EU and other major
investor countries to ensure that public money is not
invested in ways which directly or indirectly support
irresponsible or damaging mining projects.
5.3 Adequate bonds, commensurate with
the potential impact of mining, should be required to
fully cover potential damage and end-of-life
environmental and social costs. Provisions for mine
closure should adhere to the current highest standards as
stated in the Extractive Industry Review.
6. Company Specific Recommendations
The Fact Finding Team discussed a number of cases in
depth with local impacted communities. Regarding the
following subset of these cases it makes a number of
specific recommendations which are included in the final
section of the report: Geotechniques and Mines Inc [GAMI]
in Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur, Mindanao; TVI Pacific in
Mt Canatuan, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte Mindanao and
Crew Development Group in Victoria, Mindoro.
Mining Has A Very Poor Record
Mining has a very poor record in the Philippines as a
result of the massive social and environmental problems
it has caused historically. Records kept by the United
Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP] reveal the
Philippines to be among the worst countries in the world
with regard to tailings dam failures (ii) whereby the
surface impoundments containing the toxic waste from the
mining process failed with disastrous consequences for
local people and the environment.
In spite of this, since 1992, the Government of the
Philippines has been pursuing an aggressive policy to
revitalise the mining industry, potentially opening 30%
of the country’s land area to mining (iii). It has promised
that mining will be carried out to full international
standards and that environmental and social problems will
be addressed effectively.
The Government has conducted mining road shows (iv) across the globe.
Incentives for foreign firms make their operations
effectively tax-free for the first five years. Billions
of dollars in investments have been promised and a total
of 2,000 mining permit applications are pending (v). However, critics
say there is scant evidence of economic benefit to the
Philippines at the national level. At the local level
evidence of the detrimental economic, environmental and
social impact is widespread. The “streamlining”
of the mining application process has become synonymous
with a relaxing of environmental laws combined with
attempts to undermine the legal protections afforded to
indigenous peoples. It is feared that proposed
constitutional change (vi) may further
weaken protections.
The Philippines, which consists of 7,107 islands, has
fragile tropical ecosystems and is an outstanding
biodiversity hotspot. It is one of the 17 countries in
the world that are the richest in biodiversity. More than
52,177 species have been identified, half of them are
found nowhere else in the world. According to the
biodiversity conservation priorities of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources [DENR], “the
Philippines is one of the few countries in the world that
is both a mega-diversity country and a biodiversity
hotspot” (vii). It recognises
that there is a “small window of opportunity in
which it is still possible to save this global hotspot
from complete devastation and the unique life forms found
within from extinction”. This extraordinary
biological diversity is at risk because the forest cover
of the Philippines has dropped from 270,000km2 when the
Spanish left the country in 1898, to 150,000 km2 at
Independence in 1946, to just 8,000 km2 in 2006 (viii). Mining is
targeted for many upland areas where it would further
reduce forest cover and leave a toxic heritage for
succeeding generations.
Natural hazards are common in the Philippines, with major
portions of the country classified as natural disaster
hotspots (ix). Much of its
mineral resources lie either in areas of rich
biodiversity, in geo-hazard zones or within the ancestral
domain of indigenous peoples. Responsible mining, in
accordance with international best practice, is simply
not being observed in the country. Despite the legal
frameworks and guidelines, in practice mining
applications are considered for watershed areas. The
Environmental and Social Impact Assessments performed
fail to protect the environment adequately, and submarine
tailings disposal [STD] – a practice vehemently
opposed by many marine scientists and effectively illegal
in some of those mining companies’ home countries
– is being proposed (x). Mining is also
pursued in conflict zones, a practice contrary to the
recommendations of the World Bank-commissioned Extractive
Industry Review [EIR] (xi).
Catastrophic Impact
The combination of inadequate protection measures and
natural hazards can be and has been catastrophic. The
country’s record of mining accidents is evidence of
this. Most infamous is the Marcopper disaster of 1996, on
Marinduque Island, when a mine tailings spill of more
than four million metric tons of waste caused widespread
flooding and damage to farm lands and property. Villages
were evacuated and an estimated 20,000 people along the
Boac River were affected. The river was subsequently
declared biologically dead (xii). [See Kapatiran,
numbers 9, 11 and 12, 1996 and 97, for details of the
Marcopper disaster on Marinduque. Ed.] More recently,
following spills of cyanide and tailings at Rapu-Rapu
Island – the Government’s current mining
showcase – in Albay, Southern Luzon, an independent
commission established by the Government found the
company guilty of negligence and recommended that the
mining operation be closed down (xiii). The Government
failed to do this and the mine remains open.
Most of the Philippines’ mineral resources are
located within the ancestral domain of its indigenous
peoples (xiv). By law, it is
required that indigenous peoples give their free, prior,
informed consent [FPIC] before any projects proceed
within their territories (xv). The fact-finding
team learned of several incidents where companies
violated the legal guidelines and ‘engineered’
the required consent.
The fact-finding team witnessed at first hand the havoc
mining is wreaking on the livelihoods, health and human
rights of indigenous peoples and other local communities.
They also saw the potential for massive environmental
damage to critical water catchment areas, thousands of
hectares of agricultural land and the valuable marine
environment. Given the rapidly growing population, which
is projected to rise from 84 million to 150 million by
2036, the destruction of these vital ecosystems will have
serious implications for the food security and future
sustainable development of the country. Unless the water
catchment areas are protected and forests are replanted
on a massive scale with native species, it is estimated
that at least 50% of sustainable agriculture, which
require irrigation, will be lost.
There are many vocal advocates for the rights of
indigenous peoples, local communities and protection of
the environment. Such advocates include an active and
well-organised civil society with a history of
challenging legislation and policy, the Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines [CBCP] (xvi), and indigenous
peoples’ organisations. The development of mining
under current circumstances is understandably a major and
controversial issue. There have been many legitimate
expressions of concern and opposition. Even in Congress
strong voices are calling for amendments to the mining
law. Some people in Government and in corporations,
however, have labelled critics of these policies as
“anti-mining” and Leftist. In the context of
the ongoing armed conflict in the Philippines between
Government and Leftwing guerrilla forces, it is feared
that such labelling is viewed by some in the military as
an incitement to action. The fact-finding team was
particularly alarmed to learn that hundreds of people
labelled in this way, including many involved in peaceful
and legitimate criticism of mining projects and policies,
have been killed and targeted for execution. One human
rights organisation has recorded more than 700*
(xvii) extra-judicial
killings since 2001, with many human rights and
environmental activists among the victims. Calls have
come from the Philippine Commissioner on Human Rights,
Senators in the Philippines, from Amnesty International
and UN Special Rapporteurs for immediate action to stop
the killings. *That figure of 700
murders was at the time of writing. It is now closer to
900. See the lead article in this issue for details. Ed.
From the information acquired during their visit, the
fact-finding team fear that the Government’s current
mining plans will result in heightened divisions and
social conflict. They have already resulted in human
rights abuses, environmental disasters and the
destabilisation of rural communities in many areas of the
Philippines. The team also fears that such developments
and associated conflicts could damage the country’s
ability to protect and develop sustainable agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, tourism, and renewable energy –
thereby potentially further increasing rural poverty.
Footnotes:
(i) Asia and the
Pacific Philippines Progress Towards Environmental
Sustainability MDG 7 UNDP p198 see http://www.undp.org/energyandenvironment/sustainabledifference/PDFs/Asia/Philippines.com.pdf
(ii) Tailings are the
residue of the milling process that is used to extract
metals of interest from mined ores. Most of the mill
tailings mass produced worldwide is dumped in large
surface impoundments which are know as "tailings
dams". Due to a combination of the geo-hazards in
the Philippines and a lack of adequate assessment and
continuous monitoring and control of the dams, during the
construction or operations phases, there have been a
number of complete or partial failures which have had
disastrous consequences for local people and the
environment. See Chronology of Tailings Dam Failures in
the Philippines (1982-2002), compiled by Philippine
Indigenous Peoples Links http://www.piplinks.org 29 October 2003.
On file with fact finding team. The information is based
on the records of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), (www.unep.org) and other
sources.
(iii) Mines and
GeoSciences Bureau, An Overview of Minerals Potential and
Opportunity in the Philippines, Slide 5, available at http://clients.westminster-digital.co.uk/minesite/microsite/events/philippines/index.aspx .
(iv) As of October
2005 the Chamber of Mines and the Government had held
investment promotion road shows in 12 countries. BizNews
Asia 5-12 October 2005, p12.
(v) Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Summary of the
Status of Implementation of the Philippines Mining Act of
1995 (Republic Act No 7942), p2. As of June 2006 there
were 1,953 applications. Until June 2006 the total number
of major mining tenements under the Mining Act was 250.
(vi) Proposed
constitutional changes include a transition from the
present presidential bi-cameral system to a parliamentary
form of government and additional measures, including
some intended to facilitate increased foreign investment.
(vii) DENR, Philippine
Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Executive Summary,
Quezon City, Philippines, 2002.
(viii) Haribon
Foundation presentation, “Status of Philippine
Biodiversity” Slides 86 and 92.
(ix) Legal Rights and
Natural Resources Center – Kasama Sa
Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines
(LRC-KsK/FoE-Phil) presentation, “Mining
Situation”, Slide 22, presented to the fact-finding
team on 27/7/06, at a meeting with NGOs and Indigenous
Peoples’ Organisations, Malate Parish Hall, Manila.
The information quoted from Natural Disaster Hotspots
– A Global Risk Analysis 2005, World Bank and
Columbia University see
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-29-05.html. See also The
Manila Observatory, Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to
Environmental Disasters at www.observatory.ph/vm/hazard.html.
(x) The practice is
effectively illegal in Canada and the United States. See
Submarine Tailings Disposal Toolkit ‘Introduction:
Mining’s Problem with Waste’, p1, available at www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Crew/STD_toolkit. Published
jointly by MiningWatch Canada and Project Underground,
June 2002.
The European Parliament, in response to the Extractive
Industry Review, called on its member states “to
bring their influence to bear to minimise its support for
the use of toxic materials such as cyanide and mercury
and to support a moratorium on submarine tailing disposal
“. European Parliament Resolution on World
Bank-commissioned Extractive Industry Review (EIR)2004,
available at
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3637_EPFinalResOnEIR.pdf#search=%22european%20parliament%20resolution%20extractive%20industry%20review%22 .
(xi) The EIR noted
that: “The large economic rents generated by
extractive industries may help provoke or prolong civil
conflict. Indigenous peoples are particularly
vulnerable” (p6). The Review recommended that one of
the “core macro-governance” criteria in
relation to mining should be “the absence of
conflict or of a high risk of conflict” and that in
no circumstances should the Bank support mining projects
in areas involved in armed conflict (p46).
(xii) Placer Dome, the
Canadian company, was the holder of a 40% stake in the
Marcopper operations, and was the only mining company
involved in the mine. After the spill, Marcopper closed
and Placer Dome subsequently withdrew. The provincial
authorities in Marinduque are currently pursuing a case
against Placer Dome in the US courts to try to gain some
redress. The result was the loss of livelihoods for the
local Marinduque population and huge economic loss for
the Philippines. See http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/marcopper.htm University of
Michigan Environmental Justice, Case Study Marcopper in
the Philippines. See also the UNEP report Final Report of
the United Nations Expert Assessment Mission Marinduque
Island, Philippines 30/9/96 pp65, 69, which declared the
river biologically dead.
(xiii) “President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s Administrative Order No.
145, created the Rapu-Rapu fact-finding commission.
See Findings and Recommendations of the Fact-Finding
Commission on the Mining Operations in Rapu-Rapu Island,
19/5/06 Executive Summary p12, p24. The company Lafayette
Philippines Inc is 100% owned by Lafayette Mining Limited
of Australia.
The commission received submissions from Lafayette see http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/targets/lafayette for more details.
The full report is available at
http://www.agham.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=40&Itemid=33
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources own
report also accused the company of negligence. “The
main cause of the two incidents can largely be attributed
to the negligence and un-preparedness of the company to
address such emergencies”. DENR Assessment of the
Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project P35 available at http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/seasia/en/press/reports/denr-assessment-of-the-rapu-ra.pdf.
(xiv) It is estimated
that up to 15% of the population of the Philippines is
indigenous. Indigenous peoples are defined in the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act Chapter II, Section 3 h.
(xv) The Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and the Mining Act of 1995
require free, prior, informed consent from an indigenous
people for any outside development to take place within
their ancestral lands. It is also required in the UN
Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights.
(xvi) See Appendix 3:
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines Stance.
(xvii) The team was
provided with documents listing over 700 activists killed
since 2001, based on statistics provided by the human
rights organisation Karapatan. These statistics are
available at Stop the Killings in the Philippines
Campaign www.stopthekillings.org. Amnesty
International highlights the lack of reliable statistics
and confirms that there have been at least 244 killings.
See Philippines: Political Killings, Human Rights and the
Peace Process, Amnesty International, 15/8/06.
Go to top
|
