Memorandum submitted by the Working Group
on Mining in the Phillippines (WGMP)
THE IMPACT OF UK-BASED MINING COMPANIES ON
THE PHILIPPINES, PARTICULARLY FOCUSING ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD
1. INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND
This submission focuses on the way existing
and proposed mining by global companies in the Philippines poses
a threat to human rights, particularly the human right to food
of local communities.[168]
Its findings build on the WGMP's recent publication Philippines:
Mining or Food?,[169]
focusing on the impact of UK companies, with pertinent recommendations
on how to address these.
The Philippines is one of the world's most biodiverse
countries, but its natural resource base has declined alarmingly,
leading to increasing proneness to fatal disasters. Past wilful
ignorance of the connection between natural resources management
and food security has meant that the country has lost most of
its forests and much of its fisheries. Forest loss has led to
a decline in rice production, the Philippines' staple food, by
affecting climate and water supply; and, with the destruction
of fisheries, has severely undermined long-term sustainable livelihoods
for poor people.
There is strong evidence, where mining has taken
place, that the extraction process damages rice production, often
permanently. Mining is universally acknowledged to be a high-risk
activity, especially precarious in areas of high rainfall, seismic
activity, steep slopes downstream of deforestation, and dense
population—conditions common in the Philippines. Mining
is particularly risky in agricultural areas, especially above
irrigation and fishpond zones. In comparison to agriculture, fisheries
or tourism, mining creates fewer jobs per unit of money invested
and contributes least to poverty reduction and sustainable development.
On the contrary, it often increases poverty.
Profits of mining are privatised by companies,
while costs are externalised to Filipino communities, the legacy
remaining long after the mining corporation has left the country.
Once costs of environmental and social damage, decommissioning,
rehabilitation and restoration are included, the net benefit figure
is negative. Mining is also frequently associated with generating
or exacerbating conflicts, militarisation human rights abuse and
corruption in the Philippines.
This is because mining is occurring in a context
where by access to justice is rendered impossible for impacted
communities. According to the European Commission corruption is
traditionally notorious in the Philippine mining sector and the
government has taken no measures to curb it.[170]
Those opposing mining operations or seeking redress for violations
of their rights face intimidation, harassment, violence or even
death. It is estimated that there have been in the region of 1,000 extra-judicial
killings and enforced disappearances since 2001. Over 20 of
these were involved in opposing mining projects. Another 100 plus
were indigenous leaders attempting to uphold their rights to lands
and resources. Court cases are regularly dismissed or go unheard
for years on end. As a result communities have turned to international
mechanisms only to realize that these mechanisms do not have enforcement
powers over transnational companies necessary to ensure redress
for wrongs committed.
2. CASE STUDIES
The brief case studies below are based on visits
by members of the WGMP in 2006 and 2008 and illustrate
the negative impacts of global mining companies', activities on
food security in the Philippines. All have a UK connection,
a. Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur, Mindanao
Company: History of Rio Tinto (UK/Australia)
applications in the area
In 1996 the municipality of Midsalip was
covered by a number of Rio Tinto applications. Operating under
the name Tropical Exploration Philippines Inc., Rio Tinto withdrew
from the area in 1999 following strong local and international
opposition to the project. In June 2001, US mining company Phelps
Dodge, together with a Philippine partner, also applied for an
exploration permit in Midsalip, but they too withdraw their application
because of community opposition. Despite their withdrawing from
the area, the status of these Rio Tinto claims remains unclear.
Nine current applications in the municipality will ultimately
rely on joint venture partners.
Mining and irrigated rice and fish farming are
incompatible in an area that produces valuable agricultural and
marine food supplies. The extraction or exploitation of iron ore
and other minerals will severely damage the water catchment services
of Midsalip, affecting water quality and supply to all three provinces
in the peninsula, reduce agricultural production and diminish
the ability of future generations to survive.
Mining will also affect the significant investment
of the international community in reforestation, pollute and cause
erosion and siltation of rivers, and exacerbate geohazard and
landslide problems. There will be a risk of flooding and pollution
of fresh water supplies and of the main fish farming and fish
breeding grounds. There is also likely to be flooding of lowland
communities, which the forest and water catchment currently protect,
all of which will affect food security. The Indigenous Subanen
community will be particularly impacted if mining proceeds.
b. Tampakan, South Cotabato, Mindanao
Companies: Xstrata Copper (UK/Switzerland),
Indophil Resources (Australia)
This project of Sagittarius Mines has been managed
since 2007 by Xstrata, the world's fourth largest producer
of copper, whose major shareholder is the private company Glencore
(Switzerland).
Mining in this area of important forests and
water catchments, including the proposed Tampakan mine, should
not be permitted. Mining will impact the lands of the Indigenous
B'laan peoples and the downstream agricultural areas of the provinces
of South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and Davao del Sur. These areas
would be at risk from mining pollution, erosion, siltation and
continuing devastating flash floods and landslides. Lake Buluan,
with its superb sustainable fish production capacity, may be damaged
or destroyed by flash floods, toxic pollution and increased siltation,
which will gravely affect the largely Muslim population who depend
on it for survival. The Liguasan Marsh could also fall victim,
and there are fertile rice-growing areas and mangrove forests
in the marsh.
The area is geologically unstable with frequent
landslides, and fault lines. Water catchment areas need urgent
protection, conservation and reforestation, not mining, to help
sustain and increase sustainable food production. The area is
also a centre of armed conflict because of political, cultural
and economic issues. Mining in conflict areas has fuelled, and
will most likely continue to fuel, armed conflict, exacerbating
human rights abuses and internal displacement of vulnerable communities.
On 9th March 2009, a notable anti-mining critic, Eliezer "Boy"
Billanes, was shot dead by two unidentified gunmen. Although there
is an on-going investigation, it is being widely reported that
he was killed for his work opposing this project.
c. Pujada Bay, Mati, Davao Oriental
Company: BHP Billiton (Australia/UK)
The joint venture between Asiaticus Management
Corporation (AMCOR) and BHP Billiton over the Hallmark Project
involved a 60-40% equity split. However, disputes have arisen
between AMCOR and BHP Billiton, with AMCOR being granted a restraining
order and preliminary injunction against BHP Billiton in May 2008.
Mining claims—mainly nickel and cobalt—in
this area cover approximately 17,573 hectares. Mining pollution,
erosion and siltation will severely damage biodiversity, water
catchments, agricultural and marine resources and erode the area's
potential as an ecotourism attraction. The human rights of the
Mandaya will be further affected by mining on their ancestral
domain. Coastal communities who depend on fisheries are likely
to be displaced, and fish stocks, the main protein diet of the
coastal communities and nearby cities, will likely be adversely
affected in both the short and long term. Exploration and mining
within this fault line, which flanks the watershed on the southwest
and southeast, will increase risks and may induce additional seismic
activity.
d. Mindoro nickel project, Mindoro Island
Company: Intex Resources (Norway)—parent
company UK-registered Crew Development Corporation
After a chequered history of company takeovers
and name changes, Mindex Resources Development was acquired by
UK-registered Crew Development Corporation in 2000, with Crew
subsequently in 2007 creating Intex Resources, listed as
a separate company with the Mindoro nickel project as its main
asset. Over this 10-year period, mining permissions were granted,
revoked and reinstated, with claims of deception. The project,
currently under the control of Intex, is between pre-feasibility
and feasibility stage.
Intex and other mining companies should comply
with the Provincial mining moratoria and immediately cease all
activities. Mining is likely to damage the island's important
food production capacity, its fisheries and its ecotourism potential
and is considered inconsistent with the provincial sustainable
development plan. In the light of other factors, including seismic
and climatic conditions, the proposed Intex nickel project has
the potential to cause massive damage to the water catchment area,
impacting up to 40,000 hectares of rice producing lands and
exacerbating flooding of towns and villages. The Intex nickel
project, and the other 91 mining applications being considered
for the tropical island, would damage most of the water catchment
area and the possibility of sustainable food production in the
foreseeable future on Mindoro.
e. Sibuyan Island, Romblon Province
Company: BHP Billiton (Australia/UK)
In 2007 Pelican Resources (an Australian
company) announced a memorandum of agreement under which BHP Billiton
would be the sole financier of the exploration and drilling programme
of the Romblon nickel project and have exclusive rights to purchase
the laterite nickel.
In October 2008, Armin Marin, a former WWF employee,
and local councillor was shot and killed by a mine security guard
while leading a peaceful protest against the mining operations.
The mine guard has since been arraigned for murder. However, in
what is a clear distortion of the justice system the mining company
is taking a case against the local schoolteachers for their role
in organising the legitimate protest to protect the environment.
Similar strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPPs")
are common throughout the Philippines as a way to deter opposition
to mining operations.
No Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
has been carried out to manifest the cumulative impacts of the
proposed mines targeting the island, which will be a disaster
for this up-to-now remote island. Mining applications cover 42%
of the island and overlap 32% of the management area of the National
Park, including 14 sq km of the Protected Area, 32% of mangrove,
primary lowland and secondary lowland forests, 45% of rice lands,
56% of coconut lands and 43% of the Sibuyan Mangyan Tagabukid
ancestral domain. Mining on the island will undermine its ability
to feed itself or develop its eco-tourism potential.
3. CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the issue of the right to food, mining reduces
options for future generations. The Philippine population of approximately
90 million is due to rise to 136 million by 2030. Feeding
the current population means that the country has to import more
than a quarter of the 12 million tonnes of rice needed annually.
World market prices have almost tripled in recent years, placing
imported rice out of reach of the county's poor—about half
the population. The Philippines used to be self-sufficient in
rice but is now the world's largest rice importer.
Mining in the scale planned in the Philippines
and under current conditions poses a serious threat to indigenous
ancestral domains, watersheds and other areas environmentally
critical for agricultural and marine food security. The stark
choice is between a few years of mining and thousands of years
of sustainable irrigated rice and fisheries production. As such
the WGMP supports the widespread call from civil society, Indigenous
Peoples and the religious leaders that a moratorium on mining
should be declared in the Philippines and a credible independent
body should be established to review all existing contentious
mining operations. A human rights impact assessment methodology
is recommended for all projects.[171]
All of the cases above illustrate issues of
where the activities of UK-based mining companies have been detrimental
to human rights. Although it has focussed on the right to food,
the report also investigates the inextricable link between mining
and militarisation, and the intimidation and high number of extra-judicial
killings and disappearances among civil society opponents of the
Government's mining policies.[172]
This would argue that even assuming the best intentions of companies
it is not possible to operate to the highest international standards
on human rights in remote locations where conflict and impunity
for abuse exists. The report records many instances of where the
rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the right to Free,
Prior, Informed Consent over mining projects which is enshrined
in Philippines law, is constantly abused. Companies operating
in such a context where national legislation and international
obligations are being violated are complicit in this abuse.
A key concern of communities impacted by these
violations, is the lack of access to justice in the Philippines.
Various community leaders have lodged complaints with UN processes,
most notably a submission under the Early Warning Urgent Action
mechanism of the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of
Racial Discrimination. However these mechanisms are slow and lack
the capacity and enforcement power to address the extent of the
issues at hand. Community representatives have travelled to the
UK, to directly lobby the headquarters of the mining companies,
and to seek redress, but have found this to be of little avail.
Impacted communities see the complaint mechanism available under
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises as incapable
of addressing their issues. In addition to its administrative
limitations, the OECD complaint mechanisms only recourse is to
facilitate a dialogue with the companies who have abused the community's
rights. This is an inadequate process for most communities, as
past dialogues with companies have not resolved abuses committed.
Communities are therefore looking for redress
within a legal framework in which companies can be held to account
for violations of their rights. To this end the WGMP recommends
the establishment of a UK roundtable[173]
process involving government, NGOs, companies, and impacted communities
to investigate the role of British mining companies overseas and
how they can be held to account for violations of communities
and individual rights, leading to:
1) The establishment of a UK parliamentary committee
(in aid of enacting legislation) to review the actions of British
companies overseas and with the power to hear testimony from communities.
2) The enactment of extraterritorial legislation
to hold British mining companies to account.
3) The creation of a UK Ombudsman on mining with
powers to examine overseas operations.
4. BASIS OF
SUBMISSION
This submission is based on the findings of
Philippines: Mining or Food?, written by Dr Robert Goodland
and Clive Wicks, published by the WGMP, London, 2009[174]
and the 2007 report Mining in Philippines: Concerns and
Conflicts[175]
Working Group on Mining in the Philippines
Clare Short MP, Chair
Cathal Doyle, Irish Centre
for Human Rights
Dr Robert Goodland, former
Senior Environmental Adviser to the World Bank
Miles Litvinoff, Ecumenical
Council for Corporate Responsibility (ECCR)
Frank Nally, Society of
St Columban
Geoff Nettleton, PIPLinks
Rachel Parry, USPG: Anglicans
in World Mission
Ellen Teague, Vocation
for Justice, Society of St Columban
Andy Whitmore, PIPLinks
Clive Wicks, IUCN-CEESP
168 Human right to food: Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, Substantive issues arising in the implementation
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights: General Comment 12, The Right to Adequate Food, UN
Economic and Social Council, E/C.12/1999/5. See also http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/index.htm Back
169
Philippines: Mining or Food?, written by Dr Robert Goodland
and Clive Wicks, published by the Working Group on Mining in the
Philippines, London, 2009. Available at www.piplinks.org/miningorfood
and the previous report, Mining in the Philippines: Concerns
and Conflicts (London 2007) Available at http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/ceesp/ceesp_alerts/mining_philippines.cfm Back
170
http://www.delphl.ec.europa.eu/docs/cep%20Philippines.pdf:
European Commission, 2005. Philippines country environmental profile.
Makati City, Delegation of the European Commission to the Philippines Back
171
See eg Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, "Human
rights impact and compliance assessments", http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Impactassessment
[accessed 31-Mar-09]. Back
172
Figures from Kalikasan PNE note there have been 24 killings
of environmental activists and leaders since the current President
took office in December 2001, along with two enforced disappearances
and an attempted assassination. Back
173
See "An Important Step Forward: The Final Report of the National
Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian
Extractive Industry in Developing Countries", 2007, www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/92/CNCA_statement Back
174
Available at www.piplinks.org/miningorfood Back
175
Available at http://www.epolitix.com/fileadmin/epolitix/mpsites/MininginthePhilippines_Report.pdf Back
| 
