Cielito C. Goño Intersect
July-September 2006
Volume 21, N° 3
Pages 23-29
How do we build the capacity of mining communities? Residents of Homonhon and Manicani Island in Eastern Samar say livelihood opportunities and a voice in governance are just some of the ways to boost their communities.
What does "capacity building" mean, concretely? For communities that host mining projects, what does it entail? In a focus group discussion with representatives from local grassroots groups in Eastern Samar's mining towns, several themes were repeatedly raised. This article discusses two of these: they want livelihood opportunities that would diminish their communities' dependence on mining for income, and they want the outcomes of local elections to reflect their true sentiments on mining.
Diversifying Livelihood Sources
There are several reasons that together make mining communities feel pressed for more livelihood opportunities.
The quality of employment made available to residents of mining towns is not very high. Mining companies source mostly unskilled manual labour from the villages that host their operations. Because of limited employment opportunities, the market for unskilled labour in many poor villages is a buyer's market. Mining companies are not under much incentive to boost labour benefits. Thus, many workers in open-pit mines are casual or day labourers. In a focus group discussion with members of the Save Manicani Movement in July 22, 2006, a resident of Manicani Island in Eastern Samar described their employment experience in Hinatuan Mining Co.: "May binibigyan sila ng trabaho pero temporary lang at mababa ang sahod. I-hire ka for two weeks, may mga salary deduction para sa Social Security System (SSS) na sa karanasan ng marami, hindi naman nire-remit. Kaunti lang ang trabaho kaya rotation ang ginagawa nila, rotation hire na one to four weeks lang (The company hires some of us, but only on a temporary basis and with low wages. You will be hired for two weeks and they make salary deductions for SSS, but there have been complaints these deductions were not remitted. The number of jobs is limited, so what they do is rotation, they hire labourers for one to four weeks only)."
An open-pit mine could drive down agricultural output with its high water demand that could significantly tax local water tables over time, and with the damage that mine tailings inflict upon farmlands, pasture areas and fishing grounds. Many host communities of mining projects depend on crops, livestock and fishing for livelihood. The more information they have, the stronger the association that local residents make between the threat of environmental damage from mining on the one hand and agricultural productivity on the other, the more vulnerable they would feel as mining projects proceed, and the more desirous they would be of other sources of income.
Mining projects have not normally spurred much local employment that could outlive the life of a mine. When mining companies finally leave their host communities for one reason or another, local populations could find themselves at risk of having no economic leg to stand on. Former mining areas of the Philippine Pyrite Corp. in Bagacay, Western Samar, and of Marcopper in Mogpog are among the examples in the Philippines alone. The more uncertain communities are of their incomes after mining projects have run their course, the more that people in these communities would see the need to diversify their income base.
Residents of mining communities who are more informed of the advantages and perils of hosting mining operations, want to be more able to choose employment in open-pit mining projects as an option, rather than a necessity. Livelihood projects that spur employment opportunities outside of mining, would allow a mining community to spread its risks among sources of income other than mining and agriculture. This would allow the populations in these villages a greater sense of economic security. Says another resident of Manicani, "Kahit yung mga nagtatrabaho sa mina, ginagawa lang nila yun dahil walang ibang pagkakitaan. Kung meron lang sana, wala talagang magtatrabaho sa Hinatuan. Kailangan namin ng pondo para sa una, halimbawa magbigay ng isang kalabaw sa bawat barangay, para ang mga tawo, mananom. Habang hindi pa nakaka-ani, kailangan naming mangisda. Kaya kailangan din hin pamalit hin mga gamit sa pangingisda. Ang uban, kinahanglan pumpboat. Ang uban, kina hang Ian net. Ang uban, kinahanglan lang hin pang-repair hin lambat. Yung iba ang kailangan lang ay gas sa pumpboat. Iba-iba ang pangangailangan ng bawat isa. Kaya ang livelihood assistance ay hindi pantay-pantay para sa lahat. Yun talaga ang kailangan namin dito, kabuhayan. Halos wala namang may anak na OFW dito, kaya wala ring pumapasok na pera mula sa labas (Even those of us who work at the mine only do so because there is no other source of income. If only there was, no one would really work for Hinatuan. We need funds to farm, perhaps a carabao should be given to each village, so that the people there [could have a farm animal to share and] plant crops. While there is no harvest, we need to fish. And so we also need money to buy what we need to fish. Some people need a pump boat. Some of us [have boats and only] need nets. Some of us need only to be able to repair their nets. Some [have both boat and net but] cannot afford to gas their pump boat. Each person's needs are different. And so the livelihood assistance necessary is not the same for everybody. That is really what we need here, livelihood. Hardly anyone here has a child who is an [overseas worker], and so there really is no money coming in from the outside)."
The ability of their host communities to diversify sources of income is a double-edged sword for mining companies. On the one hand, the development of alternative sources of livelihood in their host communities has become part of the palate of options for corporate social responsibility. This is strategically important in building a company's reputational capital and social acceptability, both within and outside its host community. A mining company that broadens the income base of a community through livelihood projects, fosters the stability of its operations by nurturing good relations with its hosts and strengthening its base of support. This is an important concern, considering that mining can be a severely divisive issue in many communities. On the other hand, when these communities successfully spread their risks among different economic activities, their need for employment in mining could actually decline. Communities would be less inclined to wager the environment and the unity in their families and villages, when there are less contentious ways of making a living, and they are more able to say no to mining. Thus, greater economic freedom for their host communities could actually create negative incentives for mining companies.
The reverse may be argued for the inability of populations in mining areas to tap varied means of livelihood. Under such conditions, mining companies could draw their own stability from their host communities' lack of options. This lack of livelihood choices would secure the support of local politicians who need the mining projects in order to generate revenues, of policy makers in the national government who need mining not only to generate revenues but also to boost Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and thereby help parry the questions regarding President Arroyo's legitimacy, and of those employed by and directly benefit from the mining companies. Weaker economic freedoms for mining communities can create positive incentives for mining companies.
Given the mixed incentives confronting mining firms and the state, the role of taking on the problem of livelihood diversification in mining communities could actually rest squarely on the shoulders of civil society groups including funding agencies, local diocesan social action programmes, and other NGOs that could facilitate credit and other relevant interventions.
Strengthening Electoral Participation
Mayors may be the key gatekeepers to mining resources in the Philippines. This was what I found upon visiting Homonhon and Manicani Islands in Eastern Samar, where mining companies are actively supported by the mayor of the municipality of Guiuan. This, despite the 2003 Provincial Ordinance that declared an indefinite moratorium on large-scale mining in the whole province. This holds interesting implications for local electoral politics in municipalities all over the Philippines 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 its mining versus environmental protection laws. On the national level, the 1995 Mining Act upturned Philippine mining policy from one of tolerance to active promotion, while under the 1992 Network of Integrated Protected Areas Act; protected areas are closed to mining.
This has translated 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 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 instead of others. For example, in October 2003, the Eastern Samar Provincial Board passed an ordinance declaring 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. 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 continued engagement with mining companies is to draw the benefits that they have promised for the communities that host them. Perhaps she is simply making the best of the situation, considering that the irreparable environmental damage has already been done. On the opposite side of her pragmatism are classic, nagging questions on whether any of these benefits would be worth the continued environmental damage that generally comes with mining (deforestation, dumping of overburden, 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 since the 1980s on chromite and nickel mining claims there, which were secured by other companies before them in the 1970s. 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.
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 favour.
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 towards 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. Instead, in many instances, elections become the tools 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.
Conclusion
Capacity building in mining communities is a politically contentious endeavour. Mining communities are the primary, but not the most powerful, stakeholders of any mining project. Viable options for their livelihood, and electoral outcomes that reflect their interests, redound to their greater economic and political freedoms. To empower them means, essentially, to attack the lack of choice that comes with poverty.
