See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270956789

Analyzing mining as a threat to forests and sustainable development

Conference Paper · November 2004

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4825.3762

CITATIONS READS
3 2,873

3 authors, including:

Jose Don De Alban Corina Bernabe

National University of Singapore 1 PUBLICATION   3 CITATIONS   
48 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reconciling agricultural expansion and forest conservation in the new Myanmar View project

Assessing the effects of temporal discrepancy and anthropogenic niche truncation on species distribution models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Don De Alban on 17 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ANALYZING MINING AS A THREAT TO FORESTS AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Jose Don T. De Alban, Corina D.C. Bernabe, Belinda E. de la Paz

Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources
4th Floor, Fil Garcia Tower, 140 Kalayaan Avenue cor. Mayaman Street,
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
ifclgp@haribon.org.ph , advocacy@haribon.org.ph

ABSTRACT

Mining is being considered by economic planners as a key industry for

economic development in the Philippines today. But how sustainable is mining in
terms of its impact on our natural resource base? What do the policy document
reveal with regards to environmental considerations in mining policies? What do
past practices show us? These are the main questions that will be answered in this
paper through an analysis of existing mining claims that show overlaps with
forested areas and Important Biodiversity Areas (IBAs). The results present
serious implications since a revitalized mining industry also presents serious
implications to our remaining watersheds. They also call for a mining policy
framework that truly appreciates our immense wealth of biodiversity and
recognizes its role in sustainable development.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 1

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
I. INTRODUCTION

Mining is currently being promoted as a key industry towards fostering economic growth.

Starting with Arroyo government’s policy shift from tolerance to promotion of mining in January

2003, policy and economic reforms have been initiated in the bid to build up the industry. In

January 2004, a year after the policy shift, Executive Order 270 or the National Policy Agenda

on Revitalizing Mining in the Philippines was issued, to be followed by its corresponding

Mineral Action Plan (MAP). These two policy documents spell out the government’s thrusts and

plans to revitalize the industry. Once the MAP has been fully implemented, the government

expects as much as US$4.36 billion in investments, with annual potential revenues of US$2.32

billion and employment generation of as much as 19,000 workers from identified high-profit

mining projects within the next ten years. The government has also identified an initial 21

projects to be developed within the next 5 years with potential investments amounting to

US$2.05 billion.

The Philippines is undoubtedly rich in mineral resources. The National Economic Development

Authority (NEDA) has estimated the country’s mineral wealth to be worth US$840 billion, and it

is this wealth that the government wishes to harness to gain revenue. The revitalization program

was welcomed by the mining industry, but it has also met considerable opposition, as questions

were raised on its contribution to genuine economic growth and sustainable development. As

mining is an environmentally-critical project, concerns were also raised regarding its impacts on

the country’s forests and biodiversity. The Philippine archipelago is composed of fragile island

ecosystems whose forests provide ecological values like food, water, and forest products; and

also performs pollution regulation, climate stabilization, watershed functions, and other services.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 2

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
The Philippines only has an estimated 23% forest cover remaining, which is woefully inadequate

since at least 45% is needed on an island level in order to maintain its natural ecological

processes.

This paper seeks to study the mining threat to our country’s forests and sustainable development

goals. The following are the objectives of the study:

! To present adverse mining impacts by looking into past experiences in terms of

ecological, social and economic situations;

! To analyze current policies on mining and its implications to sustainable development

concerns; and

! To illustrate the extent of threats of existing and potential mining operations to forests

and biodiversity.

II. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Literature review focused on selected cases to illustrate adverse mining impacts. Relevant

portions of current policies (Mining Act of 1995, Local Government Code of 1991, Executive

Order 270, the Mineral Action Plan, and other official sources and pronouncements) were

analyzed as they relate to the concerns of the study. Spatial data analysis made use of the forest

cover data of 1988 produced by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority,

existing mining tenements as of 29 February 2004 from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau with

the exception of five Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (with an aggregated area of 5,400

hectares) due to problems with their technical description. Small-scale mining permits were also

excluded.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 3

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
III. METHODOLOGY

A. Related Literature Review and Policy Analysis

B. Geographic Information System

Data input, manipulation, spatial analysis, and overlays of all geographic data was done using

ArcView GIS 3.2 software. All computations made on spatial data used the Universal Transverse

Mercator (UTM) projection Zone 51 North.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Impacts of Mining on Forest and Sustainable Development

1. Environment

Government estimates of the potential wealth from mining are deemed by officials to be more

than enough to pay the country’s foreign debt. NEDA projections even show increased revenue

from exports, direct taxes and fees that are expected to increase GDP growth by 4%-7% in seven

years. However, there are inherent impacts on the environment in any mining operation even

with the use of best practices and technologies. These impacts are magnified in the Philippines

since the country’s fragile island ecosystems and high biodiversity make it more vulnerable to

the effects of a highly extractive industry such as mining.

Below are several examples of its impacts in the Philippines.

! Open-pit mining in the Philex mines in Sto. Niño, Tublay, Benguet upon closure in the

1980s destroyed all water sources in the area. (Corpuz and Catalino, in Tujan and

Guzman, 2002)

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 4

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 ! Underground mines in Poblacion Mankayan, Benguet have resulted in the sinking of this

village at the rate of one centimeter per year. The sinking has then accelerated when

Lepanto started bulk mining that resulted in the sinking of houses in the area by 18 inches

in the past three years. (Tujan and Guzman, 2002)

! Mine tailings disposal is considered the “main source of land and water pollution.” From

1980s until the decline of the industry, “a yearly average of 102 million metric tons of

mine wastes and tailings was released into the environment.” This has resulted in the

pollution of major rivers systems in Benguet, Pangasinan, Mt. Province, Ilocos Sur,

Negros, Cebu and Davao del Norte. Farmlands have also been reported to suffer

decrease in crop yield or semi-permanent land damages due to mine waste and tailings.

(Tujan and Guzman, 2002)

! 1.6 million cubic meters of mine tailings or 5-10 cubic meters per second was

accidentally released into Makulapnit and Boac River, Marinduque in 1996 rendering the

27-km Boac River biologically dead and causing heavy siltation in the coastal and

estuarine areas thereby adversely affecting the livelihood of close to 20,000 people

covering 42 barangays. (Tujan and Guzman, 2002)

! Dinagat Island in Surigao del Norte is home to 355 Philippine endemic flora and fauna.

A total of 102 bird species have been recorded in the island, 9 of which are threatened

and endemic to the Mindanao Faunal Region, and 38 are forest dependent. It is also host

to 3 endemic species of mammals, a very high number for such a small island. Mts.

Kambinliw-Redondo, the most important ecosystem in Loreto, is considered as one of

117 Important Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) identified by Mallari et.al. (2001). This rich

biodiversity provides vital resources and ecological services for livelihood and basic

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 5

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 needs of Dinagat residents. However, Dinagat Island is heavily threatened by mining. It is

estimated that more than half of the total forest cover of Dinagat Island (15,188 hectares)

is covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA), 58% of which are

lowland forests. The continued mining operation puts the already endangered wildlife at

risk that may lead to the species’ eventual extinction. (De Alban and Bernabe, 2004)

2. Social and Cultural

Human rights abuses, militarization, and displacement as a result of mining have been reported

in many areas. Tebtebba Foundation (2002) documented the following cases:

a. Mindex-Crew nickel and cobalt mine in Sablayan, Mindoro Occidental

" The coverage of the MPSA issued to Mindex-Crew is located over several rivers that

serve as tributaries to a major river system in the island, Mag-asawang Tubig (Water

Couple) River, which violates a provision under the Mining Act.

" Provision in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) on Free and Prior Informed

Consent was manipulated wherein Mindex-Crew allegedly colluded with an official

of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to issue a Certificate of

Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) to the company. This was facilitated when

the company organized a new tribal group among its workers and employees from

whose consent the certificate was issued.

" With the help of the DENR Secretary Antonio Cerilles, “seven army battalions were

assigned in the island in the guise of counterinsurgency operations.” Human

violations rose drastically with 5 anti-mining activists assassinated within a span of

one year. Youth activists, Mangyan members have either been arrested, tortured or

missing.
Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 6
with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 " Peasant and indigenous communities have been “reconcentrated” for easy monitoring

of anti-mining activities that is ‘reminiscent of the military’s hamletting practice

during the time of former President Ferdinand Marcos.’

b. Western Mining Corporation’s (WMC) Tampakan Project in South Cotabato

" First ever Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) covering 99,400

hectares of the B’laans’ ancestral domain that is spread across 5 provinces in

Mindanao was issued to WMC, which is a violation of the IPRA.

" While WMC offered potable water systems, schools and roads, they bribed and

appointed illegitimate tribal leaders to represent the B’laan people in order to secure

the Certificate of FPIC. These leaders were persuaded to sign an agreement accepting

the entry of mining into their territory, which resulted in conflict within the tribe and

its real leaders.

" The B’laans eventually filed a case against WMC in 1997 questioning the legality of

the FTAA. Finally, in January this year, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the

B’laans by nullifying and voiding the 1995 FTAA issued to WMC and declared

unconstitutional several provisions in the Mining Act of 1995. (Aning and Gaylican,

Philippine Daily Inquirer, Jan 2004)

c. Marcopper – Placer Dome copper mine in Marinduque

" In 1998, a state of calamity was declared in three villages along Calancan Bay in

Marinduque wherein all of the 59 children tested had high levels of lead in their

blood. Four years after the incident, 74 out of 118 children still tested positive for

blood lead levels above acceptable limits.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 7

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 d. Toronto Ventures Inc. (TVI) Canatuan Gold Project in Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte

" In October 2004, the people in Siocon, particularly the indigenous Subanons, led by

Timuay (elder) Jose Anoy, were driven away from their land and ancestral domain.

Elder Timuay reports that TVI started illegal mining operations and also desecrated

their altar, which is found at the tip of Mt Canatuan, considered to be their most

sacred place. (Kalikasan - PNE, 2004)

3. Economic

Large mining and industrial projects significantly impact economies of developing nations.

(Colley in Evans, 2002) Developing nations have only a minority of its workforce operating in

the formal or cash economy while the majority is engaged in subsistence or near subsistence

living. As such, “national governments have only a small proportion of the population from

which to raise taxes from.” It is therefore understandable for the Philippine government to be

overwhelmed by the potential income to be derived from the mineral wealth valued at US$840

billion as per the NEDA projection.

However, past experiences in the Philippines show that the mining industry has not catered to the

development of the country since it still promotes an import-dependent and export-oriented

development model. Tujan and Guzman (2002) identifies the Philippines as one of the world’s

major producers of gold, copper, chromite, and nickel. Yet with all its mineral endowment, the

Philippines does not have a developed economy - “instead the Philippine mineral wealth feeds

the engines of industrialization in the developed countries as an export product.” (Tujan and

Guzman, 2002) To illustrate, the country’s metal products exports in 2002 was worth US$89.92

million but imports were valued at US$918.4 million which is over 1000% of total exports for

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 8

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
that year. (Tujan and Guzman, 2002) In terms of labor, the mining industry does not provide

regular or long-term employment. Most companies employ temporary, casual and contract

labor. This is clearly shown in a survey conducted on Philippine Mine Workers in 1997 where

30% of enterprises in the non-metallic and 42% in the base metal industry have resorted to

employing different types of non-regular labor. (Tujan and Guzman, 2002) In addition, most of

the workforce comes outside host communities, thus marginalizing local residents.

On the other hand, valuation studies in Samar Island peg the value of biodiversity at US$43.5

billion over 25 years. This is double the projected earnings from bauxite that is US$21 billion

for the same period. Economic values for ecological indicators allow “non-use” values to be

evaluated alongside economic and financial values. This is seen to facilitate analysis of trade

offs among various development options.

Similar situations have been experienced in other regions in the world. Power (2002) revealed

that an analysis of 51 solid mineral-dependent countries showed slower growth compared to

other developing countries in the Asian region. The study even stresses that the more a

developing country depends on its mineral development, the slower its rate of growth, and that a

country’s reliance on mineral development has not been consistent with sustained economic

development and the heavier the reliance on natural resources in exports, the slower the rate of

growth in GNP per capita. Power (2002) also cites a World Bank study of hard-mineral

exporters, oil exporters and other middle income and poor countries. Findings in that study

reveal that nations that have prematurely exported their natural resources instead of using them

internally to support citizens and manufacturing had significant negative impact on growth.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 9

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
B. Mining Policy: Status and Directions

The major legislation currently governing the mining industry is the Mining Act of 1995. Under

the Mining Act, the national government, through the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB),

currently issues four major mining permits: the Exploration Permit (EP), the Mineral Production

Sharing Agreement (MPSA); the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement, (FTAA); and the

Mineral Processing Permit.

The Mining Act is now supplemented by the Executive Order 270 on mining revitalization and

its Mineral Action Plan (MAP). During the course of the development and the issuance of these

policies, a number if issues have been raised by various civil society groups – limitations and

concerns that have persisted even in the final policy documents. The Mining Act itself is

currently facing a constitutional challenge, as the Supreme Court in January 2004 ruled that

FTAA provisions in the Act are unconstitutional. The government has filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, the decision on which is yet to come out.

This portion analyzes the current mining policies and how they address three key concerns: its

definition of sustainability, its provided safeguards to the environment, and the involvement of

local governments.

1. The Definition of Sustainability

It is interesting to note that the government previously used the term “sustainable mining” in

earlier discourses and policy drafts. This term proved controversial, as civil groups repeatedly

pointed out that mining involves the extraction of non-renewable resources to the exclusion of

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 10

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
other land uses, and therefore by definition can never be sustainable. The term was eventually

dropped out of use and “responsible mining” was used instead.

An earlier draft of the National Mineral Policy, precursor of the issued MAP, included a lengthy

explanation of sustainability in the context of mining, quoted in part as follows:

“Sustainable development is feasible if the accrued rent from the depletion of mineral resources is
continuously reinvested into other sustainable undertakings and in community support services
(health, education, culture, etc.). Sustainable development implies that spin-offs from mining are
both sustainable and generated from the outset of the mining operations in order to create an inter-
generational transfer… In other words, sustainable development implies that mining be fully
integrated in the local and regional economy from the outset.”
(National Minerals Policy, August 2001 draft)

The rationale used was that while mining in itself may not be sustainable, its “spin-offs” and

consequent activities on the whole support sustainable development. Furthermore, new

discoveries of mineral deposits and technological advancements that enable more efficient

extraction of minerals collectively amount to an increase or “replacement” of mined minerals.

A critical limitation to this line of thinking, which even now guides the existing policies, is that it

reduced sustainability to the economic and geological level to the detriment of the environmental

level. Mining is an activity that has inherent environmental as well as economic impacts, and its

contribution to sustainable development should be measured in terms of both these aspects.

Government policies have consistently stated that environmental considerations shall always be

incorporated at every stage of mining operations, but this still does not address questions on the

wisdom of opening up those mining operations in the first place. The policy recognizes that the

Philippines is well endowed with mineral resources, and presupposes that the industry will be

able to successfully implement best mining practices. It does not, however, recognize the reality

that the Philippine archipelago, with small islands having forests and surrounding marine

ecosytems, are more sensitive to mining impacts. There are areas where the resulting ecological
Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 11
with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
loss resulting from mining operations will be too considerable to be justified by the benefits.

Sustainable development will not be achieved if the country’s backbone of biodiversity resources

is severely compromised. While the mineral supply may be considerable, the archipelago as a

whole may not be able to “sustain” its widespread extraction.

2. Safeguards to the Environment

Under the Mining Act, the following areas are closed to mining operations: old growth or virgin

forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests,

national parks provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird sanctuaries

as defined by law and in areas expressly prohibited under the National Integrated Protected

Areas System (NIPAS) Act. While the list seemingly shows a lot of areas closed to mining, these

areas are not at all extensive or even sufficient. Closed canopy or old growth forests, for

example, comprise only 35% of remaining forest cover, while most NIPAS areas are not yet

delineated and can still be reduced in size to leave some areas open to mining. This in fact is the

major contentious issue in the Samar Island Natural Park, where the MGB wants to excise some

54,000 hectares from the proposed park to be used for mineral development. MacKinnon (2002)

even stresses that the Philippine protected areas system is weak in real protection, contains a high

proportion of degraded habitats, not well related to the distribution of biodiversity, and shows

little relation to the forest boundaries on the ground. There are still significant areas of

biodiversity in lowland forests that do not have any legal protection under the NIPAS or

elsewhere.

The Mineral Action Plan includes a provision that the DENR should “fully implement the

guidelines ensuring the adequate consultations with all stakeholders including the mining

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 12

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
industry for the establishment of NIPAS areas, including LGU proclaimed watersheds.” (Mineral

Action Plan, Agenda B 4.1.1) Ostensibly, the reason for involving the mining industry in NIPAS

areas establishment is to prevent overlaps of conflicting land uses. However, an underlying

reason is the intent to prevent mineral-rich areas from being declared as protected areas in the

first place. In earlier drafts of the National Mineral Policy, it said,

“In establishing and managing protected areas, the Government recognizes the desirability of
leaving lands particularly those with high mineral potential, open for mineral development when
this is consistent with legislation and government policies, and compatible with environmental and
social objectives. Consequently, the Government will… fully take into account the mineral
potential of the area in question before taking decisions to create resource conservation/protection
areas.”

While the MAP states that a valuation framework will be used to determine the best land use of

an area, there is still an implicit bias for mining since it merely provides that biodiversity and

small island ecosystem concerns shall be incorporated in the Environmental Impact Assessment

process (EIA). This is highly contentious; as the EIA process itself and the way it has been

implemented in the past has its own set of faults and limitations and do not necessarily provide

adequate safeguards. Nowhere is it stated in the MAP that the valuation may eventually lead to a

decision not to mine a high biodiversity area. This kind of “have minerals, will mine” mindset is

a dangerous one that threatens our remaining biodiversity.

3. Involvement of Local Governments

“The Mineral Action Plan will not impose mining on everyone. It will not prevent any community
from refusing mining.”
- MGB Director Horacio Ramos, May 31, 2004

The following are the roles of LGUs in the mining industry (DENR-MGB Briefing Kit, 2003):

! In consonance with the Local Government Code of 1991, LGUs have a share of 40% of

the gross collection derived by the National Government from mining taxes, fees or

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 13

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 charges from mining operations, also occupational fees (30% to the province and 70% to

the municipalities concerned);

! Issue permits for small-scale mining and quarrying operations, through the Provincial or

City Mining Regulatory Boards;

! Actively participate in the process by which communities shall reach an informed

decision on the social acceptability of a mining project as a requirement for securing and

Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC); and

! Ensure that relevant laws on public notices, consultations and public participation are

complied with.

The cooperation of local government units is a critical factor to the success of the government’s

mining revitalization program. To secure this cooperation, the MAP prescribes ways to expedite

the process of securing LGU endorsements for mining projects. It also seeks to ensure that LGUs

receive their due share from mineral wealth through the speedy remittance of taxes and other

fees. LGUs are also encouraged to incorporate mining in their Comprehensive Land Use

Program. While technically LGUs have the right to deny its endorsement of mining projects, the

national government is using all its influence and creating the climate to make endorsements the

standard response. What LGUs should keep in mind, however, is their mandate to promote the

general welfare of their constituents. This is not limited to economic welfare but also

encompasses promotion of health and safety and the right of the people to a balanced ecology,

among other considerations. Local government officials have the responsibility to carefully

evaluate the merits of any project, especially if it is a critical project such as mining.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 14

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
C. Potential Threats of Mining to Conservation

As of 29 February 2004, there are 190 existing MPSAs, 16 existing EPs, and 2 approved FTAAs

covering a total land area of 489,898 hectares. These existing mining tenements enclose 1.59%

of the country’s remaining forest cover, almost 40% of which are deemed as closed canopy or

old growth forests.

The existing mining tenements also come in conflict with conservation priority areas. These

include Important Biodiversity Areas (IBA) identified by Mallari et.al. (2001), Conservation

Priority Areas (CPA) determined by a pool of experts under the Philippine Biodiversity

Conservation Priority-setting Program, and protected areas under the NIPAS Act. Strikingly,

only 18 out of 117 IBAs were identified to come in conflict with mining areas (Figure 1) while

35 out of 170 CPAs, of which 18 are simultaneously considered as IBAs, were similarly in the

same predicament. Finally, 32 out of 244 NIPAS components, of which 22 have yet to be

established, also come in conflict with existing mining tenements (Figure 2).

The Presidential Task Force on Water Resources Development and Management (PTFWRDM)

identified 18 major river basins in the country. Table 1 compares the remaining forest cover

against the area occupied by mining tenements within each watershed. Javier (2003) illustrated

that good forest cover for a watershed is estimated at 60-75% in order to minimize surface run-

off and soil loss. Watersheds with 37% forest cover or less release surface run-off to as much as

14-75% of precipitation that it receives. While existing mining tenements in some of the major

river basins occupy very minimal areas in contrast to their remaining forests (Figure 3), note that

13 out of 18 watersheds have forest cover below 20% of its total area which may be considered

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 15

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
as critical for the watershed to function efficiently. Mining areas present within the Panay River

Basin even far exceed its remaining forests.

Table 1. Remaining Forest Cover vs. Mining Tenements of the 18 Major River Basins in the Philippines.
% of
REMAINING TOTAL AREA % of FOREST
RIVER BASIN TENEMENT
FOREST Of MINING to
MAJOR RIVER BASIN AREA to
COVER TENEMENTS RIVER BASIN
(SQ.KM.) RIVER BASIN
(SQ.KM.) (SQ.KM.) AREA
AREA
Abra River Basin 4,921.020 959.683 89.653 19.502 1.822
Abulog River Basin 2,977.044 1,550.500 52.082
Agno River Basin 6,342.325 853.710 128.912 13.461 2.033
Agus River Basin 1,897.534 1,000.720 52.738
Agusan River Basin 12,768.411 7,082.556 39.309 55.469 0.308
Bicol River Basin 3,057.477 91.943 38.989 3.007 1.275
Buayan-Malungan River Basin 1,485.410 163.778 8.424 11.026 0.567
Cagayan de Oro River Basin 1,689.529 319.307 18.899
Cagayan Valley River Basin 27,663.924 9,262.703 430.281 33.483 1.555
Davao River Basin 1,366.311 441.022 0.609 32.278 0.045
Ilog-Hilabangan River Basin 1,827.025 30.850 1.689
Jalaud River Basin 1,754.340 98.664 5.624
Pampanga River Basin 12,317.292 1,833.321 45.682 14.884 0.371
Panay River Basin 2,148.619 13.141 100.224 0.612 4.665
Pasig-Laguna River Basin 4,312.990 192.587 30.419 4.465 0.705
Rio-Pulangi River Basin 20,080.523 3,157.921 700.864 15.726 3.490
Tagoloan River Basin 1,574.313 297.131 18.874
Tagum-Libuganon River Basin 2,508.847 494.454 19.708

What should be observed is that the country’s high mineral potential areas are heavily in conflict

with high priority biodiversity areas (Figure 5). The MGB recognizes this and even identifies

critical areas in terms of overlapping biodiversity priority and mineral potential areas. With a

revitalized mining industry, these highly prospective mineral areas may indiscriminately be

opened for extraction regardless of whether the area is a conservation priority or not. An

estimated minimum of 37% of remaining forests will be subjected to and potentially decimated

by various mining permits (Figure 6). The revitalization of the mining industry is, therefore, a

threat to the country’s already ailing watersheds.

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 16

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
Stattersfield et.al. (1998) identified 7 Endemic Bird Areas (EBA) and 3 Secondary Areas (SA) in

the Philippines. The EBA approach is effective in distinguishing areas that are important for the

maintenance of avian diversity in general as well as for the diversity of other flora and fauna.

4 out of 7 EBAs (including Mindoro, Negros-Panay, Cebu, and the Sulu Archipelago) were

highlighted under critical threat level while the others (Luzon, Mindanao and Eastern Visayas,

and Palawan) under urgent threat level. Table 2 illustrates the remaining forests of each EBA.

Table 2. Forest Cover of Endemic Bird Areas.

% EBA FOREST
% FOREST % MINING % EBA FOREST
to PHILIPPINE
ENDEMIC BIRD AREA COVER to EBA TENEMENTS to OCCUPIED BY
FOREST
AREA EBA AREA TENEMENTS
COVER
Cebu 0.325 0.021 4.00 ---
Luzon 23.902 37.470 1.13 1.07
Mindanao and Eastern Visayas 27.179 48.212 2.20 2.15
Mindoro 8.470 1.259 0.66 1.10
Negros and Panay 5.473 2.269 1.62 1.99
Palawan 49.875 10.485 1.33 0.88
Sulu Archipelago no data no data no data no data

Apparently, the EBA of Cebu, Negros and Panay, and Mindoro have very scant forests left

(Figure 4), which may already be irreparable in terms of the damage to biodiversity due to

habitat loss. The EBA of Palawan, Mindanao and Eastern Visayas, and Luzon, while still holding

on to a significant area of forest, are still very prone to extraction and forest fragmentation.

Considering how fragile the remaining forest habitats of these EBAs are already, opening up

more areas for mining will only exacerbate their already critical state and strip them of any

opportunity to rehabilitate. Since EBAs possess diverse flora and fauna that are unique to that

area alone and can be found nowhere else in the world, the extinction of a single species is a

tremendous loss to the nation’s rich resources and to global biodiversity as well. More

importantly, the continual loss of forest habitats bears a direct negative impact to local

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 17

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
communities that benefit from it in terms of its function as a source of food, water for domestic

use and irrigation, and medicine, among others. These clearly point out that mining threatens the

stability of our natural resource base.

V. CONCLUSIONS

From this study, we draw the following conclusions:

! Past experiences show that mining results in adverse, irreversible, and widespread

impacts to the environment that directly affects forests and local communities. The

mining industry has not spurred significant long-term economic growth.

! Current mining policy follows a limited framework for genuine sustainable development.

Its single minded thrust is to promote mining operations in order to gain revenue, but

provides inadequate safeguards to protect the environment. Policy provides a lot of

opportunities to LGUs to assess the opportunities and threats of development initiatives

such as mining. The LGU has the mandate to decide on the most appropriate

development agenda for their localities.

! Due to the fragile state of the country’s forests, watersheds, and biodiversity, a revitalized

mining industry poses a threat to the continued delivery of vital ecological services, and

deprives the right of present and future generations to a healthy and balanced ecology.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. LGUs should determine trade-offs of mining and other resource extractive industries as

against an alternative development option (i.e., community-based nature tourism).

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 18

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 2. The National Government should conduct more in-depth studies on the economic impacts

of mining that consider not only financial indicators but ecological values as well.

3. There is a need to undertake more comprehensive studies that document mining impacts

at the local level.

4. The National Government should reconsider its policy on revitalizing the mining industry

by recognizing the findings of this study.

5. Future studies assessing mining as a threat to forests should use the latest and most

reliable data on forest cover.

6. Government identified conservation priority areas should be protected at the ecosystem

level and be strictly closed to mining.

VII. REFERENCES

Aning, J. and C. Gaylican. High Court Ruling on Mining Worries Investors. Philippine Daily Inquirer (January 30,
2004)

Colley, P., 2002. Political Economy of Mining. In Moving Mountains: Communities Confront Globalization. Edited
by Evans, G., Goodman, J., and Lansbury, N. (19-36). Manila: IBON Books.

De Alban, J.D. and C. Bernabe, 2004. An Illustration of the National Mining Policy Framework and its Implications
to Biodiversity. Poster presentation for the Wildlife Conservation Society of the Philippines Symposium
held in Antipolo, April 2004.

Executive Order 270, National Policy Agenda on Revitalizing Mining in the Philippines, January 16, 2004 (as
amended by Executive Order 270-A, April 20, 2004)

Extractive Industries Review Secretariat. 2003. Extractive Industries Review’s Asia and Pacific Regional Workshop
held in Bali, April 26-30, 2003. World Bank.

Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, 2001. Forest: Life-saving Grace.

Javier, J.A., 2003. The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed Resources Management Revisited. Paper
presentation for the Inception Workshop on Watershed Management Planning of Loreto, Dinagat Island,
Surigao del Norte held in Surigao City, September 2003.

Kalikasan-PNE Press Statement. October 23, 2004. Resist GMA's Policy of Plunder in Favor of Mining TNCs!

Mallari, N.A.D., B. Tabaranza, Jr., M. Crosby, 2001. Key Conservation Sites in the Philippines. Makati City:
Bookmark, Inc.
Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 19
with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
Mineral Action Plan for Executive Order 270 and 270-A.

Miranda, M., P. Burris, J.F. Bingcang, P. Shearman, J.O. Briones, A. La Viña, S. Menard, 2003. Mining and Critical
Ecosystems: Mapping the Risks. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

National Mineral Policy, Promoting Responsible Mining for Sustainable Development. Working Document for
Public Review and Comments, August 2001.

Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang, R.G. Rosell-Ambal (eds.) 2002. Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: A Second
Iteration of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources – Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Conservation International Philippines, Biodiversity
Conservation Program – University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies, and
Foundation for the Philippine Environment, Quezon City, Philippines.

PCARRD-DOST-DENR-FMB-DA-UPLB-CFNR-FDC/ENFOR, 1999. Guidelines for Watershed Management and

Development in the Philippines. Los Baños: PCARRD-DOST-DENR-FMB-DA-UPLB-CFNR-
FDC/ENFOR.

Power, T.M., 2002. Digging to Development: A Historical Look at Mining and Economic Development. Oxfam
America.

Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

Republic Act 7586, otherwise known as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992.

Republic Act 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World. Priorities for
Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge: The Burlington Press, Ltd.

Tebtebba Foundation, 2002. Proceedings of the National Conference on Mining, May 2002. Editorial Board V.
Tauli-Corpuz, R. Rovillos, R. de Chavez, A.L. Tamayo.

Tujan, A, Jr. and Guzman, R.B., 2002. Globalizing Philippine Mining Revised Edition. Manila: Ibon Foundation,
Inc. Databank and Research Center.

http://www.mgb.gov.ph/

Proceedings of the National Conference on Integrating Forest Conservation 20

with Local Governance in the Philippines
9-12 November 2004
Subic, Zambales, Philippines
 6

View publication stats