ENVIRONMENTAL and antimining groups on Thursday lauded the plan to use the Total Economic Value (TEV) tool as a way of measuring the costs and benefits of mining.
Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), a network of civil-society organizations and community-based groups affected by mining, and the environmental group Kalikasan-PNE in a statement said they welcome and support the plan of Environment Secretary Regina Paz L. Lopez to use the TEV as a basis for cost-benefit analysis of mining operations.
ATM and Kalikasan-PNE were reacting to Lopez’s recent pronouncement on employing the TEV tool as a way of evaluating mining projects.
Lopez said recent studies in three areas proved that the cost outweighs the benefits of mining using the TEV tool, which puts value to losses in agriculture, fisheries and impact to health, and other relevant costs that are perceived to be lost in comparison to the benefits, mainly from taxes and other benefits from mining.
This early, miners are skeptical about the idea. For one, Dante Bravo, president of Global Feronickel Holdings Inc., said TEV is not specified in the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and would impair contract obligations, which is a violation under the Philippine Constitution.
For existing mining projects, he said the use of TEV will not apply, while for new projects, a mining company will be forced to look into the TEV before going into business.
Environmental groups see the TEV tool as one sure way of accurately measuring the cost of mining as against its benefits.
“It is crucial that the regulatory function of the DENR is fully implemented, and the TEV will complement very well the existing tools and guidelines that are in place for the MGB [Mines and Geosciences Bureau] to adequately perform its function,” said Jaybee Garganera, national coordinator of ATM.
ATM believes that implementing TEV falls within the mandate of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Mining companies, Garganera said, should welcome the plan, as it will allow a broader quantitative documentation of the values of the country’s natural resources and compare them with the promised “benefits” claimed by mining companies.
“The resulting value, whether positive or negative, will allow local governments and mining-affected communities to make an informed decision to allow mining or not,” he said.
Garganera added that the TEV will also allow the government to ensure that it is not encouraging an industry that claims economic benefits, but miserably fails in environmental, social, health and political values.
Meanwhile, in response to the claim of Bravo, Garganera said the implementation of the TEV is not an impairment of mining contracts.
“Mining companies must realize that their contracts, such as MPSAs, FTAAs, are privileges that were granted by the government. If the government reliably concludes, through the TEV, that [a particular] mining [project] is a losing venture, then the government should withdraw that privilege from mining companies,” he said.
Clemente Bautista, national coordinator of Kalikasan-PNE, agreed with Garganera.
Bautista said the destruction of the environment in the exploitation of the country’s natural wealth should be included in the equation.
In an interview, he said the value of these natural resources—forest, land, water, clean air, trees, wildlife—which are often lost because of mining, was never considered when the government approved the projects.
“It is about time, and it is just,” Bautista said in Filipino.
He said every tree that is cut has a value and should be computed as part of the cost of mining operations.
Moreover, payment for environmental services, such as clean water, clean air and the aesthetic beauty it provides, should also be paid by mining companies before being allowed to do business, he added.
More than payment for environmental services, Bautista said the government should work on reorienting mining, which he said, should lead to natural industrialization.