“This isn’t a contest between those of us who would protect the environment and those who would favor development. We should be neither one nor the other.”
by Ducky Paredes
What should we do about mining? To legislate mining as a forbidden venture as Gina Lopez and other firebrands would have us do is clearly not the solution.
Senator Edgardo J. Angara, Chair of the Senate Committee on Science and Technology (COMSTE), notes that we stand to gain more economic benefit from mining by focusing on value-addition, particularly in terms of downstream processing and manufacturing activities.
“However, the report also shows that the sector is faced with issues well beyond questions of returns to investment,” said Angara. “We can’t limit ourselves to just looking at how much monetary gain can be made. Further studies must take into consideration regarding the social and environmental impacts of mining, and do so, in a meaningful way.”
The question of mining has pluses and minuses and the solution is neither no mining nor all-out mining.
“Mines have made countries like Canada, Australia and South Africa prosperous, but have also impoverished many countries in South America and Africa,” says Angara.
“So there is really social and cultural animosity to these—and that’s perhaps a big part of the problem in our being unable open our mines to create jobs and employment,” says Angara, who is also Chair of the Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering (COMSTE). “In other words, while we’re going to need a lot of experts in mining, metallurgy, chemistry and environmental science, we’re also going to need as many social scientists as well.”
* * *
We have been hearing it from Gina, the Ateneo and other anti-mining militants. Now, let’s hear it from Manny Pagilinan, a recent investor in mining when he bought into Philex. MVP explains: “The Philippines is the 5th most mineralized country in the world and, in terms of defined resource, 2nd in gold and 3rd in copper. We have the potential to develop world-class mines.
“If we choose not to participate in the global supply chain for minerals – either by outright ban or a moratorium — our need for mining products will not stop. So our only recourse would be to import. We would then pay for the foreign exporter’s cost of production and profit – and the cost of protecting his environment.
“This is not common sense. Why should we pay somebody else to do the job we ought to be doing? What are the alternatives to the use of mineral land? Tourism is certainly an option to consider. However, most mining sites are not ideal for tourism. Our mines in Padcal and Surigao are hardly suitable for tourism, simply because they don’t have the features of an attractive tourist site. And even if tourism were possible, we must ask: are the expected returns from tourism comparable to the benefits which mining can provide?
“Another suggested land use is agriculture. I’m a believer in the potential and need for agriculture in this country. I consider the imperative of feeding ourselves as an urgent national priority. But again, most mines are situated in areas that are inhospitable to agriculture. The land is often too steep, too arid or too mineralized for agriculture to prosper.
“Elsewhere, mining has been a driver of economic development. Mining in Australia contributes 142 billion dollars each year; In Canada, 37.5 billion dollars; in the US, 1.9 trillion dollars, and in Brazil, 24 billion dollars.
“The challenge is precisely to grow mining so that it creates more value-added for all of us. Only a larger and healthier industry can enable us to achieve forward linkages in downstream processing plants. We can’t have more refineries and smelters simply because there are no economies of scale to make them commercially feasible.
“Only an operation as large as Tampakan or Far Southeast or Silangan can generate the volume which could justify processing in the Philippines. I understand Tampakan will cost 6 billion dollars to develop. In our case, Silangan will require an investment of more than one billion dollars.
“Mining is not the enemy. Poverty is. The lack of means, the lack of the most basic necessities, the lack of opportunities, the lack of choices – for far too long, in far too many places – these pernicious inadequacies have plagued our people. Yet the supreme irony is that, in the midst of all this poverty, lie some of the world’s richest natural resources, a gift of providence
“For our people to make use of – not abuse. It really is as simple as this – where poverty persists, small scale mining continues.
“Poverty for us is not just some utopian notion. Its stark imperatives go beyond the poetry of blue skies and tangerine sunsets. You and I in this hall are not ordinary folks who worry about the next meal, the next rent, the next Meralco or PLDT bill – who do not have a second home somewhere in the foothills of Mount Makiling.
“This isn’t a contest between those of us who would protect the environment and those who would favor development. We should be neither one nor the other.
“In the end, it all comes down to a very basic choice that we have to make for our future. Other peoples – Australians, Indonesians, Canadians, Brazilians – have already made their choice. If they can do it and succeed, so can we.
“We have a choice between fear and faith, between hardship and hope, between division and unity. Our task is to find the common ground of reason, through patient dialogue and constructive suggestions – and from there, move forward to the more prosperous future our people deserve.”
# # # #
hvp 03.05.12
Post a Comment