Since ancient times humans have extracted materials from the Earth to fashion into everyday needs: shelter, cooking utensils, hunting gear, weapons of war, primitive agricultural tools.
Through the millennia, the demand for raw materials has obviously grown exponentially along with human population. Today, extraction activities continue, augmented by recycling of certain materials.
From the moment we wake up and use the washroom, as we switch on our mobile phones and computers, drive to the office or school, and then return home and watch TV or listen to music, and until we prepare for sleep and switch off the bedside lamp, we are using things with components made of materials provided by the mining industry.
The growth in demand for raw materials is endless; supplies of many materials extracted from the ground, however, are finite.
Where to get those raw materials is a subject of debate among miners and environmental advocates. As we witnessed at that mining forum in Makati last Friday, passions can run high on both sides of the debate.
The Aquino administration, mindful of the arguments on both sides, is currently crafting a national mining policy. It will be among the toughest calls to be made by President Aquino. Any decision he makes on every contentious mining issue will come at a price. Every decision will have to be carefully explained to the sectors that will be adversely affected.
* * *
In this debate, the major mining companies are at a disadvantage. Their principal selling point is economic: locally sourcing the raw materials needed for national development, especially materials that are in abundance in this country, is practical and cost-effective. Export revenue from those materials, jobs generated and downstream industries that benefit from mining can spell billions for the economy.
Mining accounts for a large chunk of the GDP of countries such as Australia, Brazil, Chile and South Africa. These countries also feed the massive demand for minerals in rapidly industrializing countries such as China.
Mining activities have not affected tourism, another major revenue earner, in those four countries.
Environment advocates, on the other hand, point out that Australia, Brazil and South Africa have enormous landmasses while their population densities are much lower than that of the Philippines, giving those countries the luxury of confining mining activities to certain areas.
The Philippines, environment advocates point out, needs all the room it can spare for its booming population, agriculture and forest renewal.
Miners have argued that land rich in minerals is usually unsuitable for agriculture and forestry. As some participants noted at the forum, mineral-rich land can look “ugly” from a tourism point of view.
This is true in Western Australia, the principal mining area in the world’s smallest continent. I once flew over that area on my way to its capital Perth. The land is mainly arid, with sparse vegetation and the rocks and soil tinged with various hues. Australians are at a loss on what to do with the ever-growing population of camels (believe it or not) in their outback. The barren landscape is certainly less appealing than our rainforests or mountain slopes with terraced rice paddies, but I wouldn’t call it ugly from an artistic point of view. Indigenous Western Australians have created impressive fine art depicting that landscape.
Perth, on the other hand, is a model of a modern community that has grown prosperous from mining. It is clean and green, picturesque, with great views of the Indian Ocean. It ranks high in international surveys on quality of life and the world’s most livable cities.
Miners have pointed out that a mining area can be restored after its shutdown, making it suitable for agriculture or forestry. But even before the restoration – a requirement in several countries – mining firms undertake development activities in the affected community, building roads and bridges, installing sanitation and water supply systems, constructing or expanding schools and health centers.
* * *
The Chamber of Mines, whose members are the big players in the industry, have three major problems.
One is sheer image: a mine in operation is an ugly sight. It looks like a large dog has kicked up soil all around it to find a bone, with the image magnified a million times. Miners will have to present more images of restored mine sites, and make sure the images can be authenticated. Visits to these areas can be organized.
A second problem in this country is past experience with major players, such as the former Placer Dome of Canada. Placer Dome and Marcopper ran the open-pit copper mine that spilled toxic tailings into the Boac River in Marinduque 16 years ago this month. The province still has not fully recovered from that environmental disaster.
The third problem is the government’s failure to regulate small-scale mining operations such as the one in the gold rush area of Diwalwal. Many of these small-scale operations are controlled by local politicians who feel they are above the law and beyond the reach of the national government.
P-Noy will have to decide if his administration wants the big players to remain in the country, or if he will tell them to just follow the lead of others who have already shifted their attention to countries such as Vietnam.
If he decides to welcome miners, P-Noy will also have to ensure that laws and regulations protecting the environment will be in place, and industry players will exercise responsibility in their activities. A delicate balance can be tricky to achieve.
Once those laws and regulations are in place, P-Noy must ensure the most important aspect: enforcement.