ATM Policy Paper on Mining in the Philippines

Prepared
by

Alyansa Tigil Mina
September
2011

Photos
by
Farah
Sevilla,
Jay
Azucena,
Denise
Fontanilla
&
Bro.
Martin
Francisco

Updated September 2011*

Summary

The economic cluster of the Aquino administration has adopted the misplaced
policy of the previous adminsitration to revitalize the Philippine industry. Despite
the numerous studies done recently showing that mining has not contributed
significantly to the Philippine economy, mining has been included in the industrial
priority list (Arangkada 2011), and the Medium Term Philippine Development
(ironically, under Chapter 10: Environment and Natural Resources). It is ATM’s
position that such policies are inconsistent with
President Aquino’s Social Contract with the
Filipino People.

The performance of the Philippine mining
industry is dismal. It failed to deliver on its promises
on revenues, investments and employment.
Its contribution to the Philippine economy is
relatively insignificant compared to Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry. Adding tourism to the
equation (whose operations are directly impacted
by mining), then you have an imbalance.

There are evidences that describe the seriousness
of issues lodged against large-scale mining.
These include threats to gains in asset reform,
physical displacement and cultural dislocation of
indigenous peoples, destruction of biodiversity,
inconsistency with the new laws on climate
change and disaster risk reduction, escalation of

Alyansa Tigil Mina 1

social conflicts and human rights violations, undermining of local autonomy, weak
governance and regulatory mechanisms, and the myth of responsible mining. These
threats are more than enough to counter-balance the claimed benefits of large-scale
mining, and will possibly result in negative net benefits to the communities and the
country. The proposal to stop mining operations in protected areas is a welcome
initiative. However, it is easy to legally comply with this, because National Integrated
Protected Areas System Law (NIPAS or RA 7586) defines “protected areas” as those
declared by the President or Congress. We argue that there is mining in areas of
high biodiversity, critical watersheds and natural forests, that have not been declared
by the President or Congress, and thus are not legally defensible if such an Executive
Order will be pushed.

ATM recommends that the Aquino administration drops the policy on mining
revitalization and immediately revoke Executive Order 270-A. The government
must also adopt a “Cost-Benefit Analysis” in all mining projects. In the absence of
such, certain areas of the Philippines must be declared as “No-Go Zones”. Enforcing
the Mining Act of 1995 has been problematic, and given its inherent flaws, a new
minerals management law must be enacted. A rational and needs-based mineral
policy must be put in place in the interim, anchored on a National Industrialization
Plan. In all cases, the rights of indigenous peoples, just and equitable sharing of
benefits, and the principles of local autonomy must always be protected and upheld.
Finally, the government must ensure that transparency and accountability are firmly
embedded in the mining industry and govenment agencies.
2 2011 Position Paper on the Revitalization of the Philippine Mineral Industry Policy

The
current
policy
and
its
claimed
basis

The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942) is the national legislation regulating
the mining industry in the Philippines. EO 270-A was signed last September
2004, establishing the revitalization of the Philippine mineral industry. In effect,
the Philippine government has shifted its policy from “tolerance” to “aggressive
promotion” of the mining industry. Thirty-two (32) priority large-scale mining
projects have been pipelined since then, aside from more than two thousand
applications for mining contracts and exploration permits. Relatedly, government
has put its support to the mining industry in terms of i) fast-tracking the application
and permission process, ii) watering down the consent process for indigenous
peoples, iii) weakening local autonomy of local governments to resist or oppose
the entry of large-scale mining in their territories, and iv) highlighting mining as a
priority in the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP: 2004-2010).

The Arroyo administration based this policy shift on the claimed economic
benefits dangled by the mineral industry. There was pervasive belief in the
previous administration that a revitalized mining industry will bring in significant
investments, emplyment and revenues. The promises
have included i) US$5-7 billion dollars in foreign
exchange generation, ii) Php5-7 billion pesos in
excise tax colletion, iii) 239,000 indirect and direct
employment, and iv) US$4-6 billion dollars worth of
investments.

The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) has been confronted with a
conflicting role. On one hand, its main task is to
ensure conservation, protection and rehabilition of
biodiversity areas. However, it is also expected to
manage and regulate utilization of natural resources
and is required to implement the mining policies.

Amidst the backdrop of an attempt to sell the idea
of “sustainable mining”, the Philippine government
equipped the mining revitalization policy with the
National Minerals Action Plan (NMAP). Through the
NMAP, the Philippine mining industry was depicted
as compliant with the sustainable development
framework by identifying social development, environmental mitigation and
economic benefits as a convergence framework. However, as international opinion
was consistently debunking the concept of “sustainable mining”, the Philippine
government had to fall back on the concept of “responsible mining”. Responsible


mining, as showcased by the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP) espoused
“best practices” reflecting the key elements of: i) compliance with the principles of
sustainable development, ii) built-in protection for indigenous peoples, iii) ensuring
shared benefits of mining to major stakeholders, and iv) compliance with strict
environmental and social provisions.

Performance
of
the
revitalized
mining
policy

In a Philippine Institute for Development (PIDS) discussion paper, it stated that in
an 18 year period (1990-2008), the percent share of Employment in the Mining and
Quarrying Sector to Employment in All Industries never went higher than 0.65%.
The highest figure was recorded in 1990. In the same period, the total employment
in mining and quarrying in any given year never exceeded more than 160,000.1 It
is important to note that these figures capture both mining and quarrying. It is
logical to expect that if only figures for quarrying were not factored in, the total
number of employment for mining alone,
would be significantly lower. The same
paper found that the knowledge base of
the country needed to pursue national
industrialization strategy is poor. It
concluded that “judging by experience,
the search for national industrialization
in the mining sector would be a difficult…
However, [this] should not prevent the
country from attempting once again
especially given the importance of
industrialization to the growth of the
economy.”2

The gross production value in mining rose
from US$568.7 million in 2001, to a high of US$912.4 million in 2005. However,
total payments to government during this period averaged only 4.64 % of gross
production value – in stark contrast to the statements referring to wealth generation
and wealth sharing. Although the production value of mining rose steadily over
the period, the share going to local government plummeted to 0.19 % of gross
production value in 2005, and a measly 5.5 % of the total tax take. This is a far cry
from the ‘fair’ share that the national government has promised.3

-


There is evidence that undercollection of
taxes in the mining industry was between
60% to 80% from 1997-2008, a period
of 13 years. It was also observed that
poor revenue collection from mining was
recorded for the period 1997 to 2009. The
average revenue effort for the Philippines
for the period was 15.9%, and for the
mining industry, it was only 9%! Collection of taxes at the LGU level was also
dismal. The average revenue collection from 1997-2000, was only 5%. From 2001-
2009, this average has gone down to
0.7%!4 In the case of Marinduque,
Marcopper Mining Corporation has
an outstanding balance of unpaid
real property taxes for the period of
1980 to 2006 alone of more or less
ONE BILLION PESOS due to the
LGUs of Boac, Mogpog, Sta. Cruz,
Torrijos and the province.

Despite the commitments in the
previous MTPDP (2004-2010) and
the NMAP, the resolution of the
Marcopper mine tailings spill, the rehabilitation of the Mabatas Tailings Dam and
the rehabilitation of seven abandoned legacy mines remain undone.

Serious
issues
and
concerns
on
the
revitalized
mining
policy

1. Large-scale mining poses serious threats to asset reform gains. It displaced
and continues to displace indigenous peoples from their ancestral domains
under the Indigneous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA or RA 8371) and small
farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In fact,
the displacements of indigenous peoples and farmers have been heightened.
PhilDHRRA reported in 2008 that more than half of ancestral domains of
indigenous peoples are directly impacted by mining and logging applications
or operations. Moreover, the study revealed that 72% of these extractive
activities (mining and logging) located within ancestral domains operate
without securing free prior and informed consent (FPIC) from indigenous
peoples.5

Que-


The government have spent billions of pesos of public and private funds
on the above mentioned asset reform program and it is but right to sustain
the gains from these programs. Concerned government agencies in charge
of processing large-scale mining application should seriously consider it.
Displacement would affect not only the future of the families displaced but
also the country’s food security and sovereignty.

Concrete cases include the resistance of farmers in Calatagan, Batangas, in
the forced entry of Asturias Chemical Industries. An estimate of more than
a hundred farmers, working productively in about 500 hectares of farmlands,
are opposing a limestone mining operations. These farmers are beneficiaries
of the CARP, and have fully paid their amortizations to the Land Bank.

2. Mining negatively impacts indigenous peoples. Despite the safeguards
provided by IPRA, the IPs are marginalized in the fight against mining
because the free, prior and informed consent is routinely violated by mining
companies. Cases of misinformation, subtle bribery, intimidation and even
harassment have been documented. Even if royalty payments are successfully
negotiated, the assurance that communities will receive equitable and just
share in these benefits are not assured.

In 2002 and 2003, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, United Nations special rapporteur
for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples
visited the Philippines and reported: “Of particular concern are the long-term
devastating effects of mining operations on
the livelihood of indigenous peoples and their
environment. These activities are often carried
out without their prior, free and informed
consent, as the law stipulates. Communities
resist development projects that destroy their
traditional economy, community structures
and cultural values, a process described as
development aggression. Indigenous resistance
and protest are frequently countered by military
force involving numerous human rights abuses, such as arbitrary detention,
persecution, killings of community representatives, coercion, torture,
demolition of houses, destruction of property, rape, and forced recruitment
by the armed forces, the police or the so-called paramilitaries.”

In Oriental Mindoro, the Mangyans in the towns of Pola, Socorro and Victoria
are opposing the entry of Intex Mining Corporation, a Norwegian mining
company. The resistance is multi-sectoral, including LGUs, farmers, fishers,
women, professional, the religious and academe. It culminated in a hunger


strike last November 2009, that successfully revoked the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) of Intex, wrongfully issued by the DENR. The
proposed mining area was within the ancestral domains of the Mangyans,
and they have categorically denied the mining company their free, prior and
informed consent.6

Recent struggles of IPs against mining include the Palaw’an tribe of Southern
Palawan versus mining company MacroAsia Corporation who claims to have
undergone the process of free prior and informed consent, when the real
tribal warriors and leaders are publicly against mining in their ancestral land.
(This is further discussed in the next item.)

Meanwhile, killings and human rights abuses against anti-mining communities
also continue to rise. Florita Caya, General Manager of the Unified Tribal
Council of Elders (UTCEL) was shot on April 27 this year. Their organization,
a group of indigenous peoples (Mandaya, Manobo, Mangguangan and
Dibabawon) in Monkayo, Compostela Valley, were engaged in protecting their
ancestral lands against large scale mining and logging. UTCEL members said
that prior to her death, Caya has received threats urging them to stop their
activities, especially in their advocacy against mining.


The negative impacts of large-scale
mining to indigenous peoples were also
documented by a report produced by
the London-based Working Group on
Mining in the Philippines (WGMP).
The report stated that IPs “are
particularly vulnerable to the negative
effects of mining. The ancestral
domains of indigenous communities
tend to be in forested upland areas,
many of which are now targeted by
mining corporations. Stewardship
over these lands is enshrined in oral
history, myths, prayers, and traditional
laws that pre-date the Philippine state.

These indigenous communities have
traditionally lived sustainably in the
forest, but have been displaced or are
currently threatened with displacement
by what they call “development aggression” such as commercial logging and
mining. The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) requires that
Indigenous Peoples’ free and prior informed consent be obtained for mining
on their lands. However, manipulation of the FPIC process, resulting in the
fabrication of their consent, is widespread.”7

Last March 21-23, 2011, more than 150 indigenous peoples gathered in the
National IP Summit. In the Summit Resolutions, the delegates called for
the following: i) Repeal the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and support the
passage of alternative mining bills that provide for the rational management
of minerals and uphold the right of indigenous peoples; ii) Respect for the
mining moratorium issuances consistent with local government autonomy,
iii) Declaration of a moratorium on large-scale mining and strict regulation
of small-scale mining; and iv) Prohibition on the use of state forces in the
implementation and operation of mining projects.8

3. Large-scale mining poses risks to high biodiversity areas, watershed areas
and fragile small-island ecologies. It has also direct impacts on irrigation and
agriculture lands of farmers and will contaminate municipal waters and coastal


areas under the Fisheries Code. In the Philippines, most
of the mining and exploration concessions are located
in watershed areas where demand for waters exceeds
the available supply. According to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, water contamination
from mining poses one of the top three ecological
security threats in the world.

The open-pit mining method will strip mountains and
forests that threaten our protected areas. According
to HARIBON, in 2011, about 60% of KBAs, and
approximately 1/3 of ancestral domains are directly
overlapping with the 23 priority mining projects in the
country.9

The current issue in Palawan is a clear example of
conflicting land use. Mining operations have already
destroyed forest and coastal areas, while drastically reducing agricultural
productivity of irrigated rice fields. Additional mining applications
will encroach in natural forests. This is despite the status of Palawan as a
“Man and Biosphere Reserve” as declared by the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). Palawan is host to 40% of
the country’s remaining mangrove areas, 30% of the
country’s coral reefs, has identified 17 key biodiversity
areas (KBAs), 2 world heritage sites, and 8 declared
protected areas. 49 animals and 56 plant species which
are globally threatened with extinction—according
to the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature(IUCN)—are also found in Palawan. Palawan is
so unique and special that a Strategic Environmental
Plan (SEP Law or RA 7611) was passed in 1992.10

There are also 429 mining applications in Palawan, with at least two (2) large-
scale mining and several contiguous small-scale mining operations. Aside from
Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation (RTNMC) operating in Bataraza, two
other mining companies are planning to operate in the towns of Brooke’s Point.
These are MacroAsia Corporation (MAC), and Ipilan Nickel Corporation
(INC). Corporations such as Citinickel, Berong Nickel Corporation and other

10 Conservation International (CI), Priority Sites for Conservation in the
Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas, 2006

mining companies partnering with the Canadian MBMI (under Financial or
Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs)) represent an additional threat to
Palawan forest. All these operations will encroach not only on natural forests
but also on core zones and protected areas, if we use the original delineation
of the Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN) zones in Palawan.
What has happened is that the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development
(PCSD) has failed to fulfill its own mandate by releasing environmental
clearances and exploration permits to mining corporations in “core” and
“restricted” areas, where any form of extractive activity is strictly forbidden.

The indigenous peoples (Palaw’an tribe) in Brooke’s Point have never given
their consent to mining operations. Moreover, the resolutions endorsing the
operations of MAC and INC signed by the Sangguniang Bayan of Brooke’s
Point and by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan bypass the decisions
and sentiments of the majority of Brooke’s Point Municipality population.
In endorsing the mining exploration of both MAC and INC, the Sangguniang
Bayan has acted in contradiction with its own Municipal Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for 2000-2010, in which mining was never considered
as a development strategy. Also barangay governments have approved mining
operations, bypassing all forms of consultations with their constituents and
neglecting the important requirement of the Local Government Code (RA
7160) with respect to the duty of consulting
local people on any project or program that may
cause pollution, climate change, depletion of
non renewable resources. The anti-mining stand
and opposition to MAC and INC operations
on the part of the residents of Brooke’s Point
Municipality has been made clear in the course
of several rallies and peaceful demonstrations
from 2008 to 2010.

Mining will also have an adverse impact on
Palawan tribes’ sacred and worship sites, which
occupy a special position in people’s cosmology
and worldview. Furthermore, mining activities
will destroy the resource-base on which upland
indigenous communities depend for their
survival, including water sources and non-timber
forest products. It needs to be pointed out that
some of these communities have limited contacts
with the outside world, are not listed in the
national census and are particularly vulnerable
to diseases brought in my migrants and miners.


Meanwhile, in June 2011, a group of indigenous peoples claiming to be leaders
of the Palaw’an tribe signed a free prior and informed consent with MAC.
This was when the real elders (Panglima) and tribal leaders of Palaw’an tribe
sought the support of Congressman Teddy Brawner Baguilat, chairperson of
the House Committee on National Cultural Communities, and the NCIP. As
of now, the NCIP has put on hold its issuance of Certificate of Pre Condition
to MAC because of issues that still need to be addressed.

In Mindanao, the town of Cantilan Surigao del Sur, is opposing the operations
of Marcventures Mining Development Corporation (MMDC). The mine site
is part of a critical watershed area, declared by Pres. Arroyo in 2008 under
Presidential Proclamation No. 1747. Aside from the Manobo indigenous
tribe—who lay claim to an ancestral domain in the area—the LGU, organized
farmers, fisherfolk, professionals, the Catholic Church and even the Provincial
Office of the National Irrigation Association (NIA) has publicly opposed the
mining operations.

In November 10, 2010, the complainants filed an application for temporary
environmental protection order (TEPO) against MMDC. On that same day,
the Honorable Court issued a TEPO “restraining and enjoining the defendant
from continuing its mining activities and operations inside the Watershed
Forest Reserves… covering the municipalities of Cantilan, Carrascal, and
Madrid, all in Surigao del Sur, to prevent irreparable damage and injury to
plaintiffs and residents of the said municipalities until further notice from this
Court.” However, despite the court order, MMDC still continued operations
in the mining area.

In August 17, 2011, the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives conducted a hearing on the TEPO. During the hearing,


MMDC and Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources—Mines and
Geosciences Bureau denied
having received a copy of the
TEPO, and said they will
implement it immediately.
But despite this, MMDC was
still able to complete shipment
of 55,600 wet metric tons
of high-grade nickel ore to
China, in August 20, only
three days after the House
Committee hearing.

Another case in point is the Rapu-rapu spills tragedy. In October 11
and 29, 2005, two spills occurred in the Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project
operated by Lafayette Philippines, Inc, in the island of Rapu-Rapu, Albay.

Tones of effluent and toxic materials were spilled in the creeks and coastal
areas of Rapu-Rapu, causing fish kills and fish scare. An independent
commission was created by then President Arroyo to investigate the matter
and to make recommendations. The Rapu-Rapu Fact-Finding Commission
(RRFFC) stated that “the two tailings spill incidents were the proximate
cause of the health and environmental hazards in Rapu-Rapu and coastal
municipalities of Sorsogon.” The commission also commented that DENR
has been noticeably consistent in allowing Lafayette to violate especially
the environmental protection requirements of its approved Environmental
Protection and Enhancement Program (EPEP). Among the commission’s
recommendation were: i) Investigation by the Bureau of Internal Revenues
(BIR) on the underreporting of ore production and violation of tax laws,
ii) Rescinding of economic and financial incentives to the Lafayette group,
iii) A moratorium on mining in Rapu-rapu and a suspension of MPSAs in
the island pending scientific and experts’ favorable resolution of the issue of
ecological conservation and the acid mine drainage problem in a fragile small
island ecosystem, iv) Cancellation of the ECC of the mining project, and v)
Review of the Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942) specifically the provisions on
the ownership and management of mining firms and operations to protect
the interest of the Filipino people and the Philippine government. 11 To date,
none of these recommendations have been adequately acted on.

4. The policy on large-scale mining is inconsistent with the new laws on climate


change (Climate Change Act or RA 9729)
and disaster risk reduction (Disaster Risk
Reduction Law or RA 10121). The mining
industry is a direct contributor to deforestation.
The GHG emmissions of the mining industry is
not accounted for, and their demand for energy
will exponentially increase these emmision
figures. Caution must be observed regarding
the Philippines incompatibility to accommodate
large-mining operations, given its geography
and topography and poor regulatory regime.
The country is also prone to mining disasters
and other environmental problems. Based on
the data compiled by Newsbreak, 10 out of 24
mining comnpanies with projects included in
the priority list of the Philippine government
were involved in mining accidents or were the
subject of pollution investigation for the past
two decades.12

The Philippines has already experienced
environmentally devastating mining disasters
such as the 1996 Marcopper tragedy in
Marinduque (the 6th worst mining disaster
in the world), which killed marine life in the
26-kilometer waterway and flooded farmlands
and villages along its banks, leaving a clean-
up cost of US$80 million. The combination
of risks involved in mining operations and
unpredictable bad weather (such as strong
typhoons) will be a double whammy of catastrophes waiting to happen that
will cost not just environmental sabotage but worst, cost human lives.

Mining impacted communities, due to the losses of forests and other natural
barriers to typhoons, are also the most vulnerable to hydro-meteorological
hazards. Any investment by the local and national government for sustainable
development, millennium development goals, poverty alleviation, and even


infrastructures can be easily wiped out by a single bursting of a mining
dam such as Tapian Pit in Marinduque, which is a continuing threat to the
safety of more than 50,000 inhabitants in the low-lying villages. Worst, the
contaminated mine tailings will destroy all the biota of Tablas Strait, the
common waters of Romblon, Mindoro, Marinduque, Batangas, and Quezon
provinces, which is also part of the Verde Island Pass Marine Corridor, the
“center of the epicentre of the marine biodiversity of the world.”

5. Social conflicts, human rights violations and killings in mining-hosted
communities have escalated. Human rights violations have been documented,
and one case has even been elevated and discussed already at the UN
Commission on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or UNCERD.
In August 2009, two Subanon leaders – Timuay Boy Anoy and Timuay
Noval Lambo – were heard by UN officials, because of the complaint filed
by the Subanon against Canada-based mining company Toronto Ventures,
Incorporated (TVI). To date, T VI has been forced to recognize the legitimacy of
Timuay Boy Anoy’s leadership, but the full implementation of the UNCERD
recommendation has not been accomplished by the Philippine government.

Last January 10, 2011, the Commission on Human Rights issued its resolution
on the complaint of farmers and indigenous peoples against Oceana Gold
Philippines, Inc. (OGPI). The CHR established that: i) OGPI violated the
right to residence, the right to adequate housing and property rights of several
residents in (barangay) Didipio (Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya); ii) OGPI violated the
right to freedom of movement and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary
interference with the home of the people in Didipio; iii) OGPI violated the
right to security of persons of the people in Didipio; iv) OGPI violated the
indigenous community’s right to manifest their culture and identity; v) OGPI
must exercise great caution in exploiting the water resource of Didipio, possibly
endangering the community’s fundamental right to access to clean water; and
vi) the PNP violated its own operational procedures during the October 2
incident carrying high-powered firearms and by applying unnecessary and
unreasonable force.13

The CHR resolution has recommended that the government withdraw the
FTAA granted to the foreign company (OGPI) in view of the gross violations
of human rights it has committed.

As of April 2011, at least seven (7) anti-mining activists have sacrificed their lives
in defense of their land and natural resources. In October 3, 2007, Councilor
Armin Marin from San Fernando, Sibuyan Island (Romblon) was shot dead

-


while leading a mobilization against the entry of workers from Sibuyan Nickel
Properties Development Corporation (SNPDC). In December 23, 2008,
Fernando Sarmiento, Chairperson of Panalipdan-Southern Mindanaon was
killed. He was leading the local organizations against the exploration activities
of PhilCo Mining Corporation in Compostella Valley. In March 9, 2009,
Eliezer “Boy” Billanes was shot dead at the public market of Koronadal City
in South Cotabato. He was a leading figure against the mining operations of
Xstrata-Sagitarious Mines, Inc in Tampakan, South Cotabato. In February
10, 2010, Barangay Captain Ricardo Ganad from Poblacion 3, Victoria,
Oriental Mindoro was shot dead. Ganad was President of the Association
of Barangay Captains (ABC) in Victoria, and the most outspoken critic of
mining in the province. In March 1, 2010, Gensun Agustin from Buguey,
Cagayan Valley, was shot dead
while riding his motorcycle, on
his way back home from a forum
where they discussed strategies
on how to strengthen the anti-
mining movement in their area.
In January 24, 2011, Dr. Gerry
Ortega, broadcaster, veterinarian
and environmentalist, was shot
dead in Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan. Aside from being a
project manager of the Bantay-
Kalikasan of the ABS-CBN
Foundation, he was also a
staunch critic of the on-going
mining projects in Palawan.
Lastly, indigenous leader Nang Florita Caya, who was shot at the back of her
head in April 27, 2011, instantly killing her.

These are just some of the documented extra-judicial killings and human
rights violations committed against activists environmentalists who have
passionately opposed destructive, large-scale mining in the Philippines.

6. Weakening of local autonomy. As of March 30, 2011, at least twenty-two
(22) local government units have passed ordinances, resolutions and executive
orders opposing the entry or declaring a moratorium on mining operations in
their territories. The most notable ones include the i) Provincial Environment
Code of the Province of South Cotabato which has a ban on open-pit mining,
ii) the Provincial Resolutions of the two Mindoro provinces (Oriental and
Occidental), which put a 25-year moratorium on any large-scale mining
operations, and iii) Provincial resolution of Marinduque declaring a 50-year


moratorium on mining. Other LGUs with similar measures include the three
Samar provinces, the three municipalities of Sibuyan island in Romblon,
towns in Davao Oriental, Province of Iloilo, Puerto Princesa City, Tacloban
City, Zambales, Bulacan and Quezon. The DENR and the Chamber of Mines
have erroneously portrayed this as defiance of local governments against a
national policy. It may be more accurate to describe this as a dissonance
between the implementation of two national laws—the Philippine Mining Act
of 1995 and the Local Government Code of 1991.

7. There are weak regulatory and governance mechanisms in the mineral
industry. The DENR does not have enough technical and personnel
capacities to adequately address the rigorous demands of the mineral
industry. There is no effective “Cost-Benefit Analysis” that will determine
the best use of the land. In this absence, there is little evidence that the “net
effect” of the mining industry will be positive for the Philippine economy,
let alone contribute to poverty reduction. The Philippines does not have a
National Industrialization Plan. The downstream industry of minerals and
metals is practically undeveloped, with no blueprint. The Corporate Social
Responsibility framework of the Chamber of Mines continues to be a work
in progress, while the destruction of biodiversity, cultural displacement of
indigenous peoples and escalation of social conflicts in mining areas pursue.

8. The myth of “responsible mining”. The global and local mining industry
suffered from the backlash of its attempt to re-package itself as “sustainable
mining”. Environmental groups, human rights groups, think-tanks and IP
support groups exposed this “re-labeling” approach. Consequently finding
itself unable to respond, the mining industry had to contend itself with the


branding of “responsible mining”. The framework of responsible mining
is drawn from the so-called ‘best practices’ of various mining operations
happening simultaneously in different countries. BUT this model has not
been successfully closed or “looped-in” in one single operation in a specific
area. Moreover, no large-scale mining operation has completed the whole cycle
of the model yet. ATM believes that the concept of responsible mining is a
weak model, because it a) relies on voluntary compliance of large-scale mining
companies; b) highly depends on the ability of the government to enforce and
implement the safeguards articulated in national laws and policies; c) does
not address the issue of corporate and state graft and corruption, a scenario
that is not totally insulated in the extractive industries; and d) there is token
recognition of safeguards (participatory process, free prior and informed
consent, Environmental Impact Assessment). Furthermore, the industry’s
track record has earned enormous social distrust, which does not adhere to
the elements of ‘responsible mining’, and there are evidences that such illegal,
sub-standard, unethical, dirty and unsustainable practices in the mining
industry continue, despite the effort to peddle the concept of “responsible
mining”.


POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The new MTPDP (2011-2016) must drop the priotization of revitalizing
the mineral industry. EO 270-A (Revitalization of the Philippine Mining
Industry) must be revoked immediately. Chapter 10 of the MTPDP is a failure
in participatory processes, when the CSO inputs on the very controversial
mining issues were watered down, re-phrased neutrally or even outright
deleted in whole paragraphs. Numerous studies have showed that mining has
not contributed significantly to economic growth in terms of tax revenues,
substantial investments, or employment. It has too many incentives, and is
suffering from tax undercollection and uneven distribution on benefits to
major stakeholders, even among government agencies.

In fact, it is not difficult to trace that there are strong inconsistencies in
the new MTPDP when mining is overlaid with the policy to push for rural
development. Mining will not bring “inclusive growth” as indigenous peoples
access to their ancestral domains and natural resources are constrained,
human rights are violated, biodiversity destroyed, local autonomy is weakened
and graft and corruption left unattended. Finally, revitalization of the mining
industry goes against Points # 15 and 16 of the President’s Social Contract to
the Filipino people.


2. The government must adopt a policy of “the whole Philippines is not open
to mining, unless certain conditions (e.g., asset reform, social justice, cost-
benefit analysis, etc.) reveal that extracting the mineral is the best use and most
economically beneficial option. There are several areas in the Philippines –
given their topography, geo-hazard, fragile ecology, economic/productive use,
cultural value or current land use – are not suitable or even directly in conflict
with mining. For large-scale mining to pursue, a Cost-Benefit Analysis
(CBA) must be completed for all current mining projects and new mining
applications. The CBA must take into account all factors that will be affected
by the mining project, including ecological services, cultural and social values,
just compensation, and reasonable comfort. Unless the CBA shows a net
positive impact, the mining contract must either be withdrawn or reviewed.

In the interim, the government must declare several areas in the Philippine
territory as “No-Go Zones” for mining and other extractive industries. The
basis and justifications for such declarations are i) embedded in several national
laws, ii) reflected in international treates and multi-lateral environmental
agreements that the Philippines have acceded to, and iii) initiative or
concurrence of local governments.

3. The current Philippine Mining Act of 1996 (RA 7962) is f lawed, given that its
conflicts or inconsistencies with other laws is clearly manifested. Enforcement
issues and weak governance and regulatory mechanisms are pervasive. A new
mineral management law, that promotes a balance of mining implementation
with other laws (IPRA, NIPAS, LGC, AFMA, EIA/EIS, Climate Change Act,
etc.), must be enacted. The government must certify the pending bills on


mining in Congress as urgent (HB 207 and HB 3673). The new mining law
must ensure that the conservation of non-renewable mineral resources is for
the benefit of both present and future generations of Filipinos. This can be
done by adopting a sustainable, rational, needs-based minerals management
policy, geared towards effective utilization of mineral resources for national
industrialization and modernization of agriculture.

4. As the findings of several researches reveal, too much risk and negative
impacts are being introduced by the current policy on aggressively promoting
large-scale mining. It is not enough that mining applications are suspended. A
moratorium on large-scale mining operations must be immediately imposed
so that carrying capacities of ecologies can be improved. Permits for pending
applications must not be issued, and all large-scale mining operations that have
questionable circumstances (resistance of communities, opposition of LGUs,
flawed procedures, etc.), must be immediately suspended and reviewed.

Government must immediately act on recent recommendations and
resolutions that are directly related to large-scale mining:

i) Commission on Human Rights (CHR) resolution last January 10, 2011,
on human rights violations of Oceana Gold Philippines, Inc. (OGPI)
and the recommended withdrawal of the mining contract;

ii) The recommendation of the Rapu-Rapu Fact Finding Commission
(RRFFC) last August 2006, recommending the withdrawal of the ECC
and suspension of the MPSA of the Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project in
Rapu-Rapu, Albay;


iii) Revocation of the ECC of Intex Mining Corporation in Oriental
Mindoro, issued by DENR last November 2009;

iv) Recommendations of the UN Commission on the Elimination of
all forms of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) issued last October
2009 and reitereated last August 2010, to ensure the protection and
promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples;

v) Temporary Environmental Protection Orders (TEPOs) issued by courts
and writs of kalikasan granted by courts.

5. The principles of local autonomy must be respected. LGUs who have passed
resolutions and ordinances banning mining or issuing moratoriums against
mining in their localities must be respected and upheld. The Department
of the Interior and Local Government and the Department of Justice must
review and upgrade their position that a “2-out-of-3” ruling of LGUs giving
permission is equivalent to “consent” or endorsement of the LGU. Both
should be regarded as what they are – “opinions”. Sec. 26 and 27 of the Local
Government Code (LGC) must be absolutely respected, where it states that
ALL LGUs to be affected by national
development projects (including
mining) must give their consents.

6. Should the government decide to retain
its misplaced policy of aggressively
promoting large-scale mining, several
structural and policies must be put in
place, prior to granting of application
permits and actual mining contracts.
These include:

6.a Finalization of a National
Industrialization Plan, that will
indicate the actual minerals and
metal needs of the country, that
will contribute to the realization
of this industrialization plan.

6.b Complete an accurate and
realistic inventory of the actual
mineral reserves, pin-pointing
the specific locations, types and
values of the minerals, that will
be potentially extracted.


6.c Produce a mineral extraction plan that will respond to the actual needs
specified in the National Industrialization Plan, while considering the
other alternative (and more beneficial) uses of the targeted mineral
lands.

7. The government must sign-up to the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative
(EITI), in order to practice and implement transparency and accountability of
mining companies operating here in the Philippines.

8. An EO must be issued by the President not to allow mining operations in
areas that are scientifically identified as important biodiversity areas (IBAs),
watershed areas and natural forests. These areas are aside from the protected
areas system already covered by NIPAS. The EO must also include provisions
that consent of LGUs and IPs, whenever applicable, that are of paramount
requirements before mining is permitted.

9. The government should demonstrate
its capacity to uphold the right of
the people to a balanced ecology by
ensuring to expedite the prosecution
of all cases related to large-scale mining
incidents such as the Marcopper
tragedy of 1996 in which all cases filed
in relation thereof have not reached
even the trial stage 15 years after.


ATM
Assessment
of
PNoy
1st
Year
This assessment attempts to assess the performance of the PNoy administration
in its first year in relation to the issue of large-scale mining. A 10-point indicator
system is used as a barometer to determine the success or failure of the Aquino
government in addressing the key concerns revolving the revitalization of the mining
industry in the Philippines. The indicator system is a combination of reviewing the
administration’s responses and delivery of commitments, along the lines of 1) the
main calls of the ATM campaign; 2) the initial set commitments of the DENR under
Sec. Ramon Paje; 3) introduction of reforms in key government agencies and offices
directly related to mining issues; and 4) the different scenarios unfolding in key sites
of struggles within the ATM campaign. The matrix below presents the indicators
and a brief explanation of the parameters in the assessment exercise.

1. Scraping of the Mining
Act of 1995 (RA 7942) and
enactment of a new mining
law
2.

3.
Mining on mining
4.

Enact the Alternative Minerals Management Bills!


5.

6.

7.
b. Arangkada 2011

8.

of mining

9.

10.

As with other assessments of other sectors on the performance of the first year of
the PNoy administration, it is critical that the policies and actions of the previous
government be used as reference.

The GMA administration shifted the government policy from “tolerance“ to
“aggressive promotion“. This led to the streamlining of mining applications process,
and the increased number of approved mining contracts. In turn this resulted in
amplified social issues, as indigenous peoples were physically and culturally displaced
and the key biodiversity areas of the countries were directly threatened. Social
tensions also escalated, as local communities, including many local government
units, mounted strong resistance against the entry or expansion of mining projects.
On the other hand, the asset reform, social justice and sustainable development
tracks of government was effectively set aside.

Upon assumption of the Aquino administration, mining activists, together with the
broader environmental movement, held on to high expectations for reforms. This

expectation has since then been downgraded to “guarded optimism“ after the first
year of PNoy’s government.


Several bills on mining have been filed with the 15th Congress. These are HB 206
(Alternative Mining Bill), HB 3763 (Philippine Mineral Resources Act) and HB 4315
(People’s Mining Bill). Despite significant support from senior and newly-elected
representatives, to date however, no committee hearings have been conducted. No
parallel bill has been filed at the senate. The prevailing impression is that the Liberal
Party is supportive of a new mining law. The mining bills have not been prioritized,
and there is no indication that it will be certified as urgent by President Aquino. No
clear directives to push for the mining bills from the Office of the President is seem
to be forthcoming, nor were there indications that mining issues were discussed in
the LEDAC, except during the finalization stage of the draft PDP. On this item, the
PNoy administration gets a failing mark

ATM has sent at least two formal communications to the Office of the President,
urging the immediate revocation of EO 270-A or the Revitalization of the Philippine
Mining Industry. ATM’s position is that this is a legacy of the GMA administration,
and as a misplaced economic policy, has no rightful place in the “tuwid na daan”.
The Office of the President has twice responded, informing ATM that the matter has
been referred to the DENR Sec. Ramon Paje, and that his official recommendation
is being awaited, with complete staff work. To the best of our knowledge, no
recommendation has been sent to the OP on this matter. There is a move to sign a
new EO on mining, and contains the controversial proposal of Sec. Paje to declare 23
mineral reservations. The official position of ATM has been relayed, opposing this
provision in the draft EO, and counter-proposing a “no-go zone” policy which will
prohibit mining in key biodiversity areas and fragile island ecosystems, as strongly
positioned by HARIBON, one of the ATM convenors. A recent report from the
House Committee on National Cultural Communities (IPs) has recommended that


ancestral domains be included as “no-go zones” for mining. For this item, the PNoy
administration is disappointing.

No policy pronouncement for a moratorium on mining has been declared by the
Aquino administration. House Resolution 528 has been filed at Congress, authored by
Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat from the lone district of Ifugao, calling for such a mining
moratorium. This has not been acted upon by Congress. PNoy gets a failing mark on this.
In the first few engagements of civil society with Sec. Paje, one of his initial
commitments was public disclosure of mining contracts. After several attempts and
months in waiting, photocopies of the contracts of the 23 priority mining projects
were sent to the ATM office. For a limited time, these were also available in the
DENR website. Since then, the list of mining applications and approved mining
contracts are downloadable from the internet. This is an improvement. However,
the critical portions of mining documents — EIA reports, feasibility studies, ECCs —
still remain inaccessible. Maps of mining tenements are likewise almost impossible
to procure. ATM has proposed that “midnight mining contracts” be subjected to
review. This has not been done. The DENR has done an internal audit of almost
2,000 mining contracts, and they reported that they have canceled almost 750 of
these for their non-performance. However, they have also recommended the pursuit
of more than 125 mining applications and live contracts. Commendation for the
effort of public disclosure is in order. It is, however, inadequate, and therefore,
disappointing.


With regard to the “legacy
problems” of mining tragedies
and disasters in the past, after
one year of PNoy administration,
very little has been actually
achieved. Assessment for the
rehabilitation of the Bagacay
Mine has been completed. But
that’s about it. There is not
enough capacities, resources
and resolve to address the
abandoned and idle mine sites. The Marcopper tragedy in Marinduque has not
been addressed. There is no public information about the Mabatas Tailings Dam.
Finally, the assessment of the 7 abandoned mines has not been completed. For this
item, the DENR and PNoy get a failing mark.

In terms of engaging the government, civil society is relieved to witness and be part
of remarkable accomplishments. Significant reforms in the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and
the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) were clearly pursued. These
bodies have significant contributions in resolving conflicts in mining-affected
communities, particularly in the case of indigenous
peoples. Numerous resolutions have been issued
including cases in Nueva Vizcaya and Palawan.
Assessments and evaluations, including financial
and legal audits of the performance and outputs of
these agencies are well underway, possibly pointing
to even greater reforms. Some fruitful engagement
with the Climate Change Commission (CCC) was
also recorded. Even the DSWD have extended its
interest to engage civil society to support initiatives
for IPs and rural poor impacted by mining. To this
end, this item can be described as a successful effort,
and gets a high passing mark.

ATM has actively engaged the formulation process of
the Philippine Development Plan (2011-2016). The
engagement can be illustrated as a running battle,
with the civil society trying its best to keep up with
the intent of the mining industry and the DENR to
sustain the priority status of mining as an economic
policy. Overall, however, the process of crafting the
new PDP can be described as participatory, open and


genuine. Theoretically, mining has been downgraded, with its role characterized as
needing to comply with the conservation, protection and rehabilitation policies of
the government. Meanwhile the Economic Cluster of the administration continued
to pitch mining as a critical industry, effectively inserting it as one of the investment
priority areas of the Aquino administration. With these conflicting aspects, the
PNoy administration is given a unsatisfactory rating.

LRC-KsK, one of the ATM convenors, has eloquently described the commendable
behavior of several LGUs, in their assertion to say no to mining in their territorial
jurisdiction. Despite the continuous policy on mining, LGUs have gained ground
with several provinces issuing executive orders and passing resolutions not to allow
mining and effetively withdrawing
their consent. The trailblazing Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (SMI) of the Philippines, along with Australian-based Xstrata
effort of South Cotabato with its Copper (a subsidiary of the Swiss-British giant Xstrata Plc) and Indophil Resources NL,
also of Australia, is proposing a project that will impact the South Cotobato, Davao del Sur,
Sarangani and Sultan Kudarat provinces.
Provincial Environment Code has Mining in Tampakan will:
inspired other LGUs, including Cause extensive physical disturbance of almost 10,000 hectares of forest lands

Zamboanga del Sur, to replicate that serve as the watersheds of the four provinces of South Cotabato, Sultan
Kudarat, Davao del Sur and Sarangani;

the local ordinance. On the other Leave 1.65 billion tons of waste rock and 1.1 billion tons of tailings in an area
of high seismic activity and fault lines;

hand, while there will be few to Affect the water resources of communities, as it will impact the head waters of 7
river systems, affecting water supply reserved for residential and irrigation
question the capability and integrity purposes;

of Sec. Jesse Robredo of the DILG, This mining project will use up thousands of liters of water per second;

Cut down 4,000 hectares of forests including old growth forests, which are
the anti-mining movement was initial components of the protected areas system (NIPAS);

shocked when he issued a Memo Displace more than 2,600 people belonging to the B’laan communities; the
mine site will also affect the ancestral domains, covered by CADT 102, CADT 108,
CADT 72 and CADC 74;
Order instructing the Provincial It will also undermine the Provincial Environment Code of South Cotabato’s ban on

Government of South Cotabato to open pit mining signed last June 29, 2010.

review a provision on its Provincial
Environment Code that banned
open-pit mining in the locality. It
should be mentioned however,
that DILG officials have in general,
remained open to dialogue and
negotiations on a case-to-case
basis. Conscious of the principle
of decentralization and local
autonomy, ATM gives LGUs a high
grade, while disappointed with the *all data were derived from SMI’s own draft Environmental Impact Statement last April 2011

misinformed stance of the DILG.

Indigenous peoples bear the brunt of the negative impacts of mining. More recent
maps produced by ATM members reveal that more ancestral domains are threatened
by mining, as compared to available data in 2005. This scenario is compounded
by the questionable issuance of FPIC (free, prior and informed consent). It is
interesting to note that remedial measures have been initiated. A review of the 2006


FPIC guidelines was recently concluded, and civil society is awaiting with much
anticipation the results of these exercise, looking forward to substantial reforms.

Credits go to the newly-installed NCIP commissioners and the House Committee
on NCC (IPs). While cases involving conflicts in ancestral domains versus mining
remain considerable, there are enough openings to be hopeful. But these are only
enough for a passing mark.

Actions of the PNoy administration to site-specific cases reveal ambivalence regarding
the mining issue. On one hand, favorable action has been observed with the
decision to cancel mining contracts in Palawan, and the public recognition that the
stand of the LGUs not to accept mining is legitimate, such as the cases in Romblon
and Oriental Mindoro. The situation in Tampakan, South Cotabato, seems to be
a problematic for the government, though, as the government has sent signals to
foreign investors that the national government is ready to intervene, when the right
time comes. Using the escalating tensions being reported by the Sites of Struggles
as a barometer, it is safe to say that while some forms of victories in some sites have
been gained, this is not a general rule. For this matter, a rating of disappointment
is justified.

Summary
Rating
of
PNoy
Administration
on
the
Mining
Issue

1. Scraping of the Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942) and
enactment of a new mining law


PRESS RELEASE
September 19, 2011

Greens
ask:
If
DENR
doesn’t,
who
will?
A synergy-promoting coalition of nearly 30 organizations and networks working
on various environmental concerns has expressed extreme disappointment in
the DENR. The Green Convergence for Safe Food, Healthy Environment and
Sustainable Economy (GC) said that while DENR is supposed to protect the
environment, recent news reports are proving the opposite.

The group disclosed that among the series of news that had drawn their ire was the
most recent pronouncement of DENR Sec. Ramon Paje about the possibility of
lifting the ban on mining applications and reconsidering even those that had been
rejected. GC said Paje has clearly sided with the mining industry versus the will of
the Filipino people who have persistently asked that this destructive business be
limited if not banned completely.

Paje has also reportedly recommended that areas where mining companies are
operating be turned into mineral reserves so that the government can collect a
higher percentage of the companies’ income. GC pointed out, however, that while it
may seem like a good idea, a closer look would reveal that its downside far outweighs
its potential income benefit.

Fr. Archie Casey, GC Internal Vice-President, explained, “If that is done, the mining
company would have rights over everything in the area and not be subject to the laws
that are precisely meant to protect our resources -- like the NIPAS on protected areas,
IPRA on the rights of indigenous peoples, and EO 23 on the logging moratorium
in natural and residual forests. The companies would also have the right to all the
water in their reserve, to the detriment of communities living there.” The priest, who
represents the church-based JPICC-AMRSP in the Green Convergence, concluded,
“All of these are unacceptable.”


Citing a separate news report that MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino planned to
revisit incineration as a garbage solution and that Paje had been consulted about
it, Marie Marciano, GC External Vice-President and an active zero-waste advocate of
the EcoWaste Coalition, remarked, “Sec. Paje should have been the first to oppose
this move, because incineration is banned under the Clean Air Act to protect our
people and environment from the dioxins, furans, heavy metals and other toxic by-
products of incineration.”

According to Marciano, although Chairman Tolentino gave assurances that new
technologies can keep emissions at a minimal level, there is no safe level of exposure
to some of these highly toxic substances, particularly dioxin, and there is yet no
‘high tech’ incinerator that can completely prevent harmful emissions. “Besides,
waste can be converted to badly needed resources, so burning waste is tantamount
to burning money!” she emphasized.

The group also lamented an earlier report that Paje had recommended the
exploitation of the West Philippine Sea for its oil. “Does he not take global warming
seriously?” asked GC Secretary Noemi Tirona of the Consumer Rights for Safe Food
(CRSF).

“He should be the first to advise the President to shift away from the fossil fuel
economy, since studies have clearly shown that the Philippines is blessed with more
than enough renewable energy sources to power our development far into the
future,” she said, adding further, “Exporting the oil for economic gain is not worth
the suffering and losses that will be caused by climate change.”

Green Convergence believes that at this point in time, when the environment has
been so devastated, DENR should do all in its authority to prioritize the environment.

“There are many ways by which we can advance national development through
programs that would sustainably utilize our natural patrimony,” declared Dr. Nina
Galang, GC President, who also revealed that their coalition had been pointing
this out, dialoguing with Sec. Paje precisely to enjoin him to show bias for the
environment. “This is his role in the Cabinet; raising money is not,” she stressed,
“and if DENR does not speak to the President for the environment’s protection,
who will? “

Reference:

DR. NINA P. GALANG
9296671
09178538841


Alyansa Tigil Mina

Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) is an advocacy group and a people’s movement
that upholds the rights of the present and future Filipinos against the
persisting injustices related to large-scale mining.

The term “tigil-mina”
going against (to prohibit or ban) all kinds of mining. What ATM is
referring to, is stopping the policy regime on large-scale mining being
adopted by the Arroyo administration and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), which irrationally exploits mineral
resources – undermining the ‘real value of land’ (where minerals are found)
to Filipinos and promoting purely foreign-controlled and export-oriented
mining industry,
problems, poverty situation, environmental and other socio-political
concerns in our country.

ATM, formed in 2004, is a coalition of organizations and individuals from
mining-affected communities, NGOs, POs, church-based organizations
and academic institutions, that decided to disengage from the series of
consultations convened by the DENR regarding the revitalization of the
mining industry through the aggressive promotion of large-scale mining in
the country.

Much like the Bantay Mina coalition in the 1990s and the Peoples’ Call
presented at the Dapitan Initiative in 2002, ATM serves as a watchdog that

corporations/institutions, multinational mining corporations and other key
players to expose their wrongdoings and failures of the laws and policies,
their implementation and the practices involved in the mining industry.

Alyansa Tigil Mina

Alyansa
Tigil
Mina
National
Secretariat
#
973
Aurora
Blvd.
corner
Dapdap
St.,
Anonas,
Cubao,
Quezon
City
1109
Philippines

Tel.:
+63
(02)
434.46.42
loc
27

Fax:
+63
(02)
434.46.96

Emails:
nc@alyansatigilmina.net policy@alyansatigilmina.net sos@alyansatigilmina.net
Website: Facebook: Twitter:
www.alyansatigilminat.net Alyansa Tigil Mina atm_philippines

ATM Policy Paper on Mining in the Philippines

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (16)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a ATM Policy Paper on Mining in the Philippines

Semelhante a ATM Policy Paper on Mining in the Philippines (20)

Mais de Farah Sevilla

Mais de Farah Sevilla (8)

Último

Último (20)

ATM Policy Paper on Mining in the Philippines