The Alternative Mining Bill

The A lternative Mining Bill (AMB), a.k.a. House Bill 6342, or the Philippine Mineral Resources Act of 2009, is a proposed policy to scrap the Mining Act of 1995 and introduce a new mining policy, which is anchored on land and natural resources management and human rights-based approach. The bill aims to regulate the rational exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources and ensure the equitable sharing of benefits for the State, indigenous peoples and local communities and for other purposes. The bill covers ownership, management and governance of ore minerals onshore, as well as quarry resources, sand and gravel, guano, and gemstones excluding offshore mining and other resources such as petroleum and coal natural gas, radioactive materials, and geothermal energy, as these are resources, which require specific laws.

The bill takes into consideration the decades-long issues, experiences and analysis of different individuals, organizations and communities affected by mining in the Philippines. It is a tool to elevate the marginalized and impoverished communities to the level of big businesses (in terms of political power) through the legal system to force government, transnational corporations, international finance corporations and other countries to face communities, to address the loopholes of the Mining Act of 1995 and stop unjust mining regime and practices in the Philippines.

The bill is the result of extensive consultations with different mining affected communities nationwide since 2004. It is aims to articulate the basic agreements during the Dapitan Initiative—a mass-based movement formed in 2002 to counter act the government’s creeping aggressive promotion of large-scale mining operations in the country. The policies and principles that should govern the mining industry expressed by advocates during the Dapitan Initiative were:

1. Uphold indigenous people’s rights and achieve a more ecologically sound, gender-fair, equitable system of resource management;

2. Everyone should share in the burden of satisfying resource needs primarily through reusing and recycling existing mineral products;

3. In land and water use, the concerns of food security, which includes food free from pollution, livelihood production, ecological balance, equity, and social justice should always be the priority;

4. Only resources that are necessary for domestic use and national industrialization should be utilized. We should develop our own human resources and encourage the evolution of our own appropriate technologies. Priority should be given to community-based, community-initiated and community-owned stewardship of resources; and

5. There should be no compromise on human rights, dignity and collective identities.
The AMB was filed in Congress on May 13, 2009 and was introduced by House Representatives, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Erin Tañada, Walden Bello, Rufus Rodriguez and Carlos Padilla.

The myth of responsible mining

The concept of “responsible mining,” showcased by the Arroyo administration and Philippine Chamber of Mines, presents the following key elements which:

a) (abides by the) principles of sustainable development;

b) (has) built-in protection for the indigenous peoples;

c) (involves) sharing of the benefits of mining among the major stakeholders; and

d) (has) strict environment and social provisions.

The framework of responsible mining is drawn from the so-called best practices of various mining operations happening simultaneously in different countries but this model has not been successfully closed or “looped-in” in one single operation in a specific area. Moreover, no large-scale mining operation has completed the whole cycle of the model yet.

In our analysis, the concept of responsible mining is a weak model, because:

a) It relies on voluntary compliance of large-scale mining companies;

b) It highly depends on the ability of the government to enforce/implement the safeguards articulated in national laws and policies;

c) It doesn’t address the issue of corporate and state graft and corruption, a scenario that is not totally insulated in the extractive industries; and

d) There is token recognition of safeguards (participatory process, Free Prior and Informed Consent, Environmental Impact Assessment, etc.)

Furthermore, the industry’s track record has earned enormous social distrust, which does not adhere to the elements of “responsible mining” proving that it does not exist in the Philippines. –ALYANSA TIGIL MINA, Manila Times