RP Could Be World's 5th Mining Power, Says ArroyoA reaction to an article which appeared in PDI

I read an article in last Friday’s paper about the prospect of the Philippines becoming a major mining country. It lauded the Supreme Court’s decision to declare as constitutional the Mining Industry Liberalization Law which allows, among other things, the entry of foreign players in the mining sector. The article also quoted a NEDA estimate of the economic potential of the country’s mineral deposits.

The numbers in the report/estimate are staggering. A whooping P1.8 trillion annual contribution to the nation’s coffers is expected. This, as the article states, is equivalent to 36% of the country’s gross domestic product. The economic potential is placed at P47 trillion, or 15 times the country’s foreign debt.

These numbers should not be ignored in the face of the fiscal crisis that the country is experiencing right now. Although, I must add, that we must not be blinded either by the huge amount that the country could get from exploiting our resources.

What struck me most about the article, however, was not the NEDA estimate nor the Supreme Court decision, but the reaction of some people to the report itself.

A militant scientists’ group [sic] cited rapid environmental degradation as a downside to this report. The group stated that “the Supreme Court and the Arroyo administration were ignoring the effects of mining on the environment and the people”. The leader of the group further stated that “foreign mining corporations had caused rapid environmental degradation in the country”.

Church people, meanwhile, cited past catastrophes related to environmental degradation to dissuade further prospecting and exploration.

I am actually saddened, and insulted at the same time, by their reactions for the following reasons:

1. Their reaction presupposes that Filipino engineers and environmental practitioners (note that I didn’t use the term environmentalists) are incapable of implementing sound mining and environmental practices,


2. That a proper response to tragedies and past mistakes is to run back to our caves, mope and hope that “the bad man will be gone” the next time we venture out,


3. That we do not have the capacity to practice vigilance (not vigilante-ism) at the same time that we are trying to build an economically viable industry,


4. And that the only way to protect the environment is not to touch it (which, to me, is a very classic environmentalist view point).

These people are doing us, Filipino engineers and environmental practitioners, a disservice by denying us the chance to practice what we know here in our own country. By lobbying against the liberalization of the mining industry, these people are denying us our chance to interact with and learn from experts in the field. It is no wonder then that many bright minds opt to work abroad than be intellectually stifled here in our own land.

We do know better now, don’t we? And the available technologies are just there for the taking. All we have to do is choose the one that will best suit our requirements (i.e. technology- and culture-wise). Let us learn from the past, not run away from it. Let us not live in fear of the unknown, but rather conquer the unknown and tame it.

AND PLEASE, LET US NOT SOW FEAR IN THOSE WHO KNOW LESS, BUT RATHER, IN THE NAME OF SERVICE TO GOD, MAN AND COUNTRY, LET US EDUCATE THEM!