Mining’s influence on local elections

COMMENTARY

By Cielito C. GoñoInquirerLast updated 07:05am (Mla time) 09/17/2006

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=21433

Published on page A11 of the September 17, 2006 issue of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer

MAYORS may be the key gatekeepers of mining resources in the Philippines. This was what I found out when I visited the islands of Homonhon and Manicani in Eastern Samar. In these islands, mining companies are actively supported by the mayor of the municipality of Guiuan, despite a 2003 provincial ordinance declaring an indefinite moratorium on large-scale mining in the whole province. This holds interesting implications for local electoral politics in municipalities that are the planned sites of mining projects.

The Philippines has severely conflicting national policies governing the use of its natural resources. One area of conflict is environment protection. On the national level, the 1995 Mining Act upturned Philippine mining policy from one of tolerance to active promotion. On the other hand, under the 1992 Network of Integrated Protected Areas Act, protected areas are closed to mining.

This has led to conflicting local policy applications. In Samar, for example, 41 mining companies reportedly hold claims that fall within the Samar Island Natural Park (SINP) established in 2003 by Presidential Proclamation 442. The SINP area overlaps with a declared Bauxite Mineral Reservation. There is also interest in chromite and nickel extraction within the SINP. In the southernmost end of Samar, the Guiuan Protected Seascape, defined in Presidential Proclamation 469 of 1994, overlaps with areas that experience siltation from the operations of Hinatuan Mining Co. in Manicani Island, and of Heritage Resources & Mining Corp. in historic Homonhon.

In the face of conflicting national policies, the different local government tiers seem to have free rein on which policies to uphold over others. Take the October 2003 ordinance passed by the Eastern Samar provincial board, which we mentioned earlier. It declares an indefinite moratorium on large-scale mining in the province, upholding the policy of environmental protection over that of mining promotion. However, Guiuan Mayor Annaliza Kwan does not seem to be bound by this provincial ordinance, choosing to uphold the promotion of mining instead of environmental protection. It is her support that allows and facilitates the interests of mining companies in Manicani and Homonhon.

Mayor Kwan has previously argued that the whole point of continuing the town’s engagement with mining companies is to draw the benefits that they promised for the communities that host them. Perhaps she is simply making the best of the situation, considering that irreparable environmental damage has already been done.

On the opposite side of her pragmatism are the classic, nagging questions on whether any of these benefits would be worth the environmental damage that generally comes with mining (deforestation, dumping of waste rock and mine tailings, and water pollution from toxic chemicals, acid drainage and silt that cover corals and fish-spawning beds).

There is also the question of whether anyone has ever been able to associate mining with the key development goal of poverty alleviation in these islands. The companies have had their hands on chromite and nickel mining claims there since the 1980s. These are claims secured in the 1970s by other companies before them. If poverty alleviation could be achieved through a mining-led development strategy, perhaps this should be evident by now. Instead, the people of Manicani and Homonhon today typically depend on subsistence-level fishing and farming, as they always have in the past.

Ironically, the anti-mining residents of Manicani and Homonhon actively campaigned for Kwan when she ran for mayor, not knowing she would eventually try a manipulative dance with mining companies, albeit with professed good intentions.

The power of the Guiuan mayor to facilitate the interests of the two mining companies, despite the province-level ban, implies that mining companies could have a heavy interest in the outcomes of elections for mayor where they intend to operate. It is not difficult to imagine how mining industry money can flow to determine such outcomes in its favor.

After several rounds of local elections in which special interests in mining would play a prominent role, it is not difficult to imagine as well how pro-mining local politicians would tend to flourish in their careers and rise to regional and national positions of power. Over time, a larger proportion of the Philippines’ elected politicians could have a more decisively pro-mining bias. Mining industry interests would gain greater, more entrenched protection.

In this scenario, it would be wise for pro-environment groups to brace themselves and move toward stronger participation in local electoral politics in order to offset the impact of special mining interests. The mining issue should be built as the determining electoral issue for voters in areas that host mining projects. That is, voters must be made especially aware that they should elect only candidates who reflect their own sentiments on hosting mining projects in their barangay, municipality or province.

Mass media also must respond with more discriminating and intelligent coverage of elections in municipalities and provinces that are the sites of different mining projects. That the emerging scene is one of special interests capturing political power should not escape the reporters of TV, print and radio who would be sent to cover these local elections.

Ideally, in a strong democracy, electoral outcomes reflect the will of the people. Unfortunately, in many instances, Philippine elections become the tool of special interests. If people in a mining area demonstrate informed consent to host mining projects, then let them elect local officials who would facilitate the operations of mining companies. But if local people do not give informed consent and, in fact, severely oppose mining activities in their localities, then pro-mining local candidates should not win just because their campaigns are better-funded.

Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.