Mining is one of the age-old sources of income of Filipinos, especially in mineralized areas in the archipelago. It is either done through small or large-scale operations but it has since been considered as an environmentally critical activity because of its serious adverse effects to the state of the environment, particularly if mining is not done in a responsible way. In the early years of mining, foreigners dominated the lucrative industry because they had the resources to fund the huge capital outlay required to fully operate a mine. Lack of a comprehensive law to regulate mining in the country for equitable benefit-sharing between companies and affected communities has not been place since. Cost-benefit analysis of mining operations had always been on economic contributions of mines to the government including their assuming some of the government obligations like providing health, education, and infrastructure facilities. Worse, long-term environmental and social-cultural impacts had been bottom considerations. Thus, we see the resistance of communities, especially indigenous communities, to mining operations because they have seen the immediate impacts on the livelihoods, homes and properties, but also the long-term effects they are experiencing through the continuous siltation of rivers, subsidence and landslides, among other things, that again deprives them of their sources of subsistence. What is not factored in the rosy pictures of mining benefits are the families, hundreds and thousands of them, who lost their livelihoods, homes and communities, so that mine workers can have livelihood. We ask, do we deprive others of their right to have a decent standard of living so that miners can enjoy this right? Is it right that more will sacrifice so that some will enjoy life with salaries and benefits from the destruction of their territories?
Recently, the House committee on natural resources started its series of public hearings on the impact of mining to the country in the city which was followed by an ocular inspection in Mankayan, Benguet, host to the operations of the suspended Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. During the hearing, anti-mining advocates raised their vehement opposition to the continuous operation of Lepanto because of the serious negative impact it has caused to the environment, the health and sources of livelihood of indigenous peoples and downstream communities, the state of the agriculture sector, the overall situation in the host and neighboring communities, among others.
For the concerned government agencies like the regional offices of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), appropriate actions were done on the complaints of the people relative to the effects of mining such as subsidence of certain areas that resulted to the destruction of public buildings and private houses, the alleged contamination of the major river systems and rice farms that resulted to their inability to be productive, the worsening health condition of the people as a result of the suspected toxic wastes from the operation of the companies, among others. Further, there were also independent studies conducted in relation to subsidence and pollution and there were other factors that were pinpointed as a major cause of subsidence like the location of the area within a geological unstable area, the existence of a fault line in the area, the continuous exposure of the soil and stones to natural factors that resulted to the crippling of the soil among other highly technical factors.
Local officials are divided on the contribution of mining to the pace of development in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Those against mining claimed local governments were not able to benefit from mining because they had difficulty accessing their supposed share from the national wealth taxes paid by the companies directly to the national government. On the other hand, other local officials claimed their towns were classified as first-class because of the contributions of mining to the development of host and neighboring communities apart from their share from the national wealth taxes that are given to them several years after the mining companies have remitted such taxes to the national government.
For the mining companies, mine executives asserted their firm commitment to do their mining operations the responsible way aside from contributing to the development of their host and neighboring communities through the implementation of the social development and management projects among other concerns requested by the people living within their midst plus the fact that they have been consistent in ensuring the preservation and protection of the environment in their tenement areas.
We agree to the observation of Kalinga Rep. Allen Jesse Mangaoang that the mistrust of the people in the community to the local officials, representatives of concerned government agencies and mine executives and vice versa is the culprit behind the snowballing opposition to mining. While there are some mining companies that do not do their thing right, there are also other companies that have done it the proper way, like Philex Mining Corporation which had been recently commended by no less than President Rodrigo R. Duterte. Concerned stakeholders must learn to constantly communicate to prevent problems from being blown out of context and being taken advantage of interest groups.
What is needed is a study of the real impacts of mining including its long-term effects, on people and not just on the its economic contributions, the number of workers it employs, etc. The focus should be on the impact on the quality of life affected communities, from their economic to spiritual well-being. Many mines have destroyed sacred and culturally significant sites of indigenous peoples which are part of their identify and cultural heritage. The study should include not only the host communities, but all communities impacted in the long-term. This is the only way to have a comprehensive and balanced picture of the impacts of mining on us as human beings. The ferocious reaction of those employed in the mining industry are understandable, but so are the militant opposition of adversely affected communities.
We must continue to learn the complications of the industry for us to be able to understand the true picture of mining as we could not quantify the overall effects of mining to rural development and to the lives of the people over the past several decades.