Gov’t reviewing coverage of no-go zones for mining

MANILA, Philippines - The government is reviewing the coverage of the so-called no-go zones for mining as it is found to be a deterrent to the acceptance of exploration permit (EP) applications, according to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB).

MGB director Leo Jasareno said some 500 applications for mineral exploration are affected by the no-go zones map created by the technical working group (TWG) for environmental protection of the Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC).

The TWG that created the No-Go Zone map is expected to begin reviewing the coverage areas soon. 

The so-called no-go zones are areas where extractive activities would be prohibited or limited. While the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 already prohibits mining activities in certain areas such as agricultural lands and tourism areas, problems still arise from enforcement.

In line with the new mining policy issued in July 2012, the MICC created the map to identify specific areas closed to mining.

The map, completed in January 2014, however, proves to be far too restrictive to the acceptance of mining permit applications such as EPs.

When the MGB reviewed the first batch of EP applications, only one application passed the map restrictions. Many areas previously open to exploration have either been reduced or removed as the map had reduced by 50 percent the total land area previously open to extractive activities.

Upon scrutiny, the MGB discovered that the severe reduction of mining areas was caused by the identification of Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZs) pursuant to the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997.

The mapping method used in the identification of these agriculture and fisheries subzones, “generalized various subzones of the SAFDZs.”

 “So even if there are only patches of SAFDZs, these were generalized (and classified as no-go zones),” said Jasareno. “So there will be lesser areas available to mining.”

Jasareno said the MGB has formally asked the MICC for the review.