Nickel demand in the Philippines is a major concern

Mining and deforestation threaten biodiversity in Philippine provinces

New mining permits are banned by local ordinance for 50 years

Mining operations are challenged by community opposition and environmental concerns

By Mariejo Ramos

The Philippines is ramping up its operations to meet the global demand for metals, minerals and other materials to support the green transition.

"When you mine for nickel, you must remove topsoil, forest vegetation and wildlife, causing deforestation and displacement of wildlife," said Grizelda mayo-Anda. She is the director of Environmental Legal Assistance Center, a legal organization that promotes environmental rights.

In response, Palawan Gov. Dennis Socrates has signed a moratorium of 50 years on all mining agreements and exploration permit applications in the province.

Mayo-Anda stated that it is still unclear if the ordinance would be implemented after a change of provincial leadership following elections in May.

The Philippines is the second-largest producer and exporter of Nickel, which is essential for the transition to greener technologies such as wind turbines and panels.

The International Energy Agency predicts a 65% rise in nickel demand by the end decade.

Palawan is home to eleven active mines. Three of these are large-scale, nickel mines that span four towns. However, companies looking to open new mines cannot obtain the approval from the local government.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Palawan is considered by some as the Philippines' last frontier in terms of ecology. It contains almost half of the old-growth forests, 30% of mangroves, and 40% of coral reefs.

Mayo-Anda stated that nickel is mined in the Philippines primarily from laterite deposits found near the surface. Nickel is extracted using open-pit mining techniques.

Conservation International, an environmental nonprofit group, conducted a study on Mt. In 2008, the Mantalingahan Protected Landscape found that the $5 billion worth of ecosystem goods and services, such as clean drinking water, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation, far exceeded the value of the minerals, which was then estimated at 15 billion pesos (262 million dollars).

CHURCH RESISTENCY

Mayo-Anda is an attorney in Palawan who has been doing legal advocacy on the ground for many years. She said that some farmlands have lost their productivity due to soil erosion and disruptions to water cycles, which she attributes to mining.

She said that while mining companies had built schools, tribal centers, and roads, the communities, as well as our politicians, did not do a cost-benefit assessment of the economic value (of the destruction).

The local church also opposes new mining activities.

Bishop Socrates Messiona, Apostolic Vicariate, Puerto Princesa, said: "As it is often the situation, mining companies exploit and profit from natural resources."

Bishops of Palawan oppose the mining industry due to its social and environmental impacts, which they claim could cause displacement and harm to the poor.

The bishop said, "But the key question is whether or not they have empowered the local economies and community so that they can survive when they leave."

Mesiona is one of the three bishops in Palawan who have called for an immediate ban on all new mining applications. There are currently 68.

Mesiona stated that "if they all operate, it will be the end for Palawan to be called 'the final ecological frontier'."

It is not clear whether the government will approve new mining permits in Palawan following the moratorium, despite the fact that national law grants local governments the right to express their concerns and assess mining projects.

The Supreme Court recently rejected a 25 year moratorium on large scale mining imposed by Occidental Mindoro in another Philippine province. They cited the limited power of local governments to regulate mining projects.

VIGILANCE IS NEEDED

In a statement published, the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (an association that represents the sector) called the ban "myopic".

The Chamber stated that "the moratorium limits the ability of the country to plan and strategize its mineral wealth in a time where global demand for essential minerals is increasing."

It said that the Philippine government "must develop its mineral resources responsibly to the benefit of many." Palawan, it added, "cannot and shouldn't limit the ability of the national government to do this."

Jose Bayani Baylon (Senior Vice President of Nickel Asia Corp.) said that mining-related impacts "are designed to be temporary", and are different from permanent land conversion, such as urbanization and agriculture.

Baylon explained that "mining activities are usually subject to strict regulatory frameworks which mandate progressive rehabilitation and forestation -- such as the requirement of planting 100 trees for each one removed."

Greenpeace Philippines director Lea Guerrero stated that critical mineral mining should be controlled in order to respect human rights, and alternatives such as above ground and recycled minerals must be developed.

Guerrero stated that "there should be strict no go zones ..., and stricter, more rigorous assessments of social and environmental due diligence and respect for Indigenous peoples and the rights local communities and indigenous peoples."

Mesina said that it is important to maintain vigilance in order to make sure the 50-year moratorium has a lasting impact.

He said, "We must continue to educate our people on the importance of protecting our natural environment."

(source: Reuters)