Backflip deals happen in damp mine tunnels

LETTERS FROM THE AGNO

March L. Fianza

ITOGON, Benguet -- Last week, I accidentally came across an article about the so-called “responsible mining.” Under another related article, it talked about the effects of mining within indigenous cultural communities (ICCs).
     Coming across these articles was timely since the indigenous peoples of Barangay Ampucao in Itogon are in a bind on how to resolve looming problems concerning the wider operations of the Itogon-Suyoc Resources Inc. (ISRI) which they believe has overlapped their domain.
    In the Philippines, it is public knowledge that about 60 percent of mining operations take place within ancestral domains. In most cases, the operations often proceed without the consent of the affected communities despite mandatory processes required by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA).
     The most common incidents reported in some mining operations in Nueva Viscaya and Mindanao were that IPs became victims of displacement, human rights violations such as arbitrary detention, harassment and demolition of private houses, to the extent that oppositors were killed.
     In other words, displacement of IPs from their ancestral domains was due to mining projects which primarily threatened their indigenous ways of life by intruding into their farms, houses, traditional workplaces and churches.
     It is also common knowledge that mining operations lead to loss of biodiversity, contribute to climate change, cause erosions and sinkholes; pollute air, groundwater, surface water and soil, and cause many negative effects on communities downstream. These are forthcoming conditions in Itogon.
     To minimize the negative effects of mining in ICCs, large scale companies have attempted to be more responsible by employing more acceptable means of operations such as low-impact mining methods by using eco-friendly machines, recycle or reuse mining waste, rehabilitate and improve mining sites.
    In 2014, “responsible mining” was the phrase that was being used to replace “sustainable mining” which was then popular among mining advocates in the 90s but was discredited after its concept became doubtful as it was hardly applicable.
    The new phrase, according to a high school classmate who is now semi-retired from mining after employment in Africa, said “responsible mining” is more acceptable as it involves and respects all stakeholders, lessens environmental impact, and takes into account an impartial share of financial benefits.
    The mining sector, whether private or government, is attempting to peddle “responsible mining” as a new brand in the industry that will answer concerns of environmental destruction and poverty in the host communities. I wonder if this rebranding will improve the volatile situation in Itogon.
    With very recent events that were not so favorable to mining-affected communities in Itogon, reality portrays a picture that is different from how company management and government see “responsible mining”. It could be applied in Africa and in some mining operations in Benguet, but not in Itogon.  
    By the way, some 28 mine operations that were stopped during the time of President Duterte due to violations of environment laws were surprisingly allowed to operate. Since there is unstoppable corruption in the government, there is no way for “responsible mining” to happen in many mining operations in the Philippines.
     In Itogon, particularly in the four sitios of Barangay Ampucao that are believed to be overlapped by the Application for Production Sharing Agreement (APSA 103) of ISRI; many community elders, households and property owners, and small-scale miners have already accepted that they cannot stop the operations of ISRI.
    But they have choices on whether to vote Yes or No on the APSA. Another means of tackling the conflict is by choosing to “excise” and remove the four sitios from the mining operations, or give their “consent” to the company to dig underneath their properties.
    In a voting exercise last September 13, at least 210 voted to give their consent for the APSA. However, nothing was finalized as the event was disrupted by their own barangay kapitan who was understandably on the side of ISRI. Residents who were disappointed by the commotion no longer participated in the voting although 710 voted “No” to APSA in a previous show of hands.
    On September 20, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which was still being questioned was signed despite a petition against the APSA that was received by officials from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).
     There was no action nor recommendation by the latter to hold an honest to goodness Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) process to make every soul in Itogon be more informed of the plans of ISRI. Nothing. Zero.

Days after the MOA was signed, I was informed that pro-APSA barangay officials held a “victory” party, followed by dinner dates by pro-APSA residents and ISRI representatives at exclusive restaurants in Baguio.

The only reason why some people do not care about the future and welfare of their own community and reverse their stand on an issue is when they are offered bribes that they cannot refuse. Shady deals can make them backflip even in damp gold mine tunnels.

Even at this time, if the opposition takes an active stance and involves the new NCIP officials in their fight, they can refresh their chances of protecting their water sources, their properties and livelihood which should be everyone’s priority concern. Losing hope in getting public attention and eventual help should be the last thing on their minds.