Mining your own business

In its most general sense, “information assymetry” refers to a situation where relevant information is possessed only by some of the relevant parties. In real and practical terms, this is the condition that we are all immersed in. We make decisions based on the information that we “have,” and most of the time, that’s less than the information that’s actually available.

Indeed, we often live with information assymetry by “opting out,” that is, we simply don’t find ourselves “relevant” or the matters at hand to have any bearing on our lives.

In some ways, this is how certain issues manage to slip by unnoticed. The good thing is that, oftentimes, all it takes is one person to get our attention and help point us in the right direction.

*      *      *      *

Some months ago, I was invited to meet Ms. Gina Lopez. Impressed by the success of her previous efforts in rehabilitating the Paco Estero, I was confident that the cause which she was going to talk about would be worth a listen. And she did not disappoint.

Ms. Lopez’ group’s new crusade is to stop the mining activities in Palawan (see www.no2mining-inpalawan.com). Citing studies, their contention is that Palawan’s ecosystem is much too fragile to be subjected to mining activities. In this regard, “responsible mining” would not be a reconcilable oxymoron, but a simple misnomer. Simply, responsible mining is possible, but not in Palawan.

This call bears greater significance, in light of last year’s hailing of Puerto Princesa’s Underground River as one of the new seven wonders of the world. Undoubtedly, this new title would draw and is drawing more tourists to Palawan, bringing with it the prospects of not only helping the province but the entire country as well. In fact, eco-tourism would most likely incentivize its inhabitants to take better care of the environment.

The viable alternative lords it over the other: the risks of environmental harm and potential damage that mining can bring. (And in this alternative, who really stands to benefit more, anyway?)

*      *      *      *

Coincidentally, around that time, there was a minor controversy involving a conference hosted by the Ateneo School of Government. Such conference on “The Future of Mining,” was criticized in a paid ad, calling to question its purpose, agenda, and its participants. In response, Ateneo President Fr. Jett Villarin, S.J. issued an official statement clarifying the intention of the conference, in that the “peer review conference” was just that — for the purpose of reviewing academic papers, and with the aim of advancing scholarly output on mining. In addition, Fr. Jett stated that neither the conference nor its participants were anti-mining. Quite the contrary, the emerging consensus was that “responsible mining is possible but certain governance conditions must be fulfilled to make this a reality.”

*      *      *      *

On the surface: I subscribe to the notion that human beings were created, not so much to have dominion over the earth, but to become its stewards. We have come a long way from the thinking that the world revolves around us and that we are here to subdue it. In the context of responsible stewardship, we are supposed to serve as caretakers — we take with care, and care for what (and from where) we take.

The problem largely stems from our insatiable desires which drive us to pillage the earth’s bounty, as though there is no tomorrow. On a pragmatic level, if we are to survive as a species, then we have to believe that, though, we might not be here tomorrow, our children and future generations need to have something to look forward to.

In this sense, I can accept the proposition that there is a responsible way of doing mining in certain areas. Given the implementation of a proper regulatory framework, and effective monitoring of and compliance with environmental safeguards, certain areas can be mined responsibly without undermining the ecosystem. (On a curious note, it must not be by accident that “mine” is not just a noun or a verb, but a possessive pronoun, too. It is that which is both the ends and the means — and the condition when the two meet!)   

*      *      *      *

Mining deeper into the issue: If anything, this exchange demonstrates the significance of managing “information assymetry” and, consequently, our apathy. In recent days, there have been a flurry of exchanges between certain members of the mining industry, local governments, and members of the academe. Those who assume that there is no common ground are simply too proud to look at their feet, to see where we all are standing.

That the deadline for the issuance of an Executive Order — that would serve as a comprehensive set of guidelines for mining activities — has lapsed is not an irremediable quandary and — hopefully and more importantly — so is the condition of our apathy.

It is our obligation to keep ourselves informed and to form an opinion. We might not have “standing” — because either we’re not part of the mining industry, or it is happening to other people somewhere else — but we stand to lose more, if we let our interest wane even before we have done our part as responsible stewards. As such, we should hold our selves to the duties and responsibilities that having a stake entails; otherwise, we might already be standing on shaky ground, without even knowing it.

*      *      *      *

Green and Gold: Praise, like charity, begins at home. So this week’s four centavos are given to the graduates of the MBA-JD program of FEU Institute of Law and DLSU College of Business led by its first topnotcher, Elaine Marie Laceda, who placed 9th in the 2011 bar examinations. The program also registered a high first time passing rate of 84 percent and an over-all passing rate of 78.12 percent.

*      *      *      *

“Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders.” – Ronald Reagan

*      *      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]