Gold, At What Cost?

“We should live here on earth as though we were intending to stay for good.” – 2000: A Better World for All

            In 2000, robberies of pawnshops in Naga City cropped up like a booming industry. The crooks might have been disinterested now in robbing banks with the depreciation of peso that is why they shifted to robbing pawnshops. Knowingly, they must have been apprised that the glittering gold never devaluates in the market. It is quite impressive to have spotted that lucrative activity at par with kidnapping, bank robbery, and drug pushing.

            The gold per ounce has reached $1,400, an all-time high. 

            What is it in gold that people desire it so much?

            Although I acknowledge its indispensability in the field of sciences, I still wonder how it has dominated our world. People simply become fond of it that they want to accumulate more and more until there is more. Even the crude oil is labeled as “black gold” for its significance in the present living is defined by its universal use and demand. Its exploitation as a resource becomes imperative as long as the host permits so. Hence people from other land come to marked places in search of that precious, special gem.

            Historically myriad conflicts erupted due to the insatiable want of possession of gold. But the modern trend of globalization restrains any possibility of that since it makes legal the intrusion of foreign people to exploit the resources of the local people. On the account, our people become poor while living in the midst of abundance made available for them by the ordered creation. It is the strangers from our land that benefit from the blessings above and under us. They take the first bite of the cake while our people just watch waiting for the leftover. Commonly what they give appears like a gift out of their generosity not a settlement of their duty. And sadly our people accept gladly the leftover from the strangers without realizing that they are merely receiving what rightfully belongs to them. It is a plain poetic injustice to our people. And yet on their side are our own people who are supposed and tasked to push for our welfare and rights against these imposing strangers, but they turn their back against their own people since they share a little piece of the cake.

            This is the typical picture of the mining industry in our country. With the 1995 Mining Act, the industry has been revived from its moribund state. Coupled with our government’s thrust of globalization vis-à-vis market liberation, the industry is bound to glory days again.

            But not too fast, says the environmentalists and other groups who oppose mining in the Philippines. The Marcooper tragedy is the ultimate foundation of all struggles against mining in the country. Our people cannot be heedless to the cries and calls of the victims for the repeal of the Mining Act after the disastrous spillage of mine tailings to Boac down to the Calancan Bay. But it seems that the government can. Aargh!

            The fight against mining is a universal struggle profiling the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. Most of the gold resources around the world are used for jewelry by the affluent and wealthy people. Therefore it caters to the demand of the few and not to the human need. How many mountains and vast of land must we reduce to barrenness just to satisfy the created fashion whims of the few? There is always, I believe, a point of time to realize our damnation, but shall we wait for a messiah to that for us?

            Our people’s rise to go against mining is a politically correct decision that we have to support. And in Bicol, let us join the struggle to stop the Rapu-Rapu mining project in Albay, Philippines.

(Click here for a book on mining issues in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. It is entitled, Under-Mining the Power of Commuities: The Politics of Mining and Local Community in the Philippines)

UNDERMINING THE POWER OF COMMUNITIES: THE POLITICS OF MINING AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Oftentimes, local communities feel powerless in the decision-making on issues that matter most to them. It is time to give them back the power they truly deserve and put them at the center of decision-making of these issues.

Environmentally critical projects such as mining remain a controversial and divisive issue in mineral-rich communities all over the world. Arguably, mining projects bring jobs, revenues to local governments, cash income, and various development projects, such as electrification, paved roads, schools with free or subsidized education, chapels, water system, and other livelihood programs. In many instances, these benefits are very enticing and attractive to locals.

However, scientific studies and objective data on mining operations in various communities have found out that mining also brings adverse effects and negative impacts on locals and the environment, such as displacement from homes and traditional livelihoods, dependence on cash income and incursion into their value system leading to consumerism, health problems caused by exposure to toxic materials, siltation of waterways, deforestation, loss of productive land, and pollution of marine environments.

Environmental advocacy campaigns of both pro- and anti-mining communicate these mining benefits and costs to the locals to convince them either to accept the mining project or join the struggle against the mining project. Given these two scenarios, how do locals decide when a mining project is presented in their community? How do they participate in the decision-making that impact on their economic, political and socio-cultural standing? What influences their participation in decision-making and their decision?

The locals of Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay in the Philippines were in that situation in 2001 when a mining project was seeking social acceptability from the local communities. This study revisited their decision and explained why they decided that way. It also took into account the crucial physical, political, economic, and sociocultural contexts of the decision-making of the locals.

 Background

Since the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Rio Summit of 1992 on environment and development, “sustainable development” has become the buzzword and rhetoric of development planning and intervention. The basic principle of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, thus improving people’s quality of life. The environment is now given a greater role, consideration, and attention in the development paradigm.

Countries have aligned their development plans with the sustainable development framework. The Philippines is no exception. In fact, the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21), the blueprint guide for sustainable development which resulted from the Summit, articulates this premise, "envisions a better quality of life for all Filipinos through the development of a just, moral, creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony and within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation."

PA 21 had an eminent influence on the national and local policymaking and policy direction initiatives which deal with the conservation and preservation of the environment and country’s quest toward sustainable development. As concrete steps toward that quest, several landmark legislations were enacted into laws such as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, Mining Act of 1995, and Clean Air Act of 1999.  

Local communities know their situation well. It is a matter of including them in the decision-making with informed and meaningful participation.

Get the book here. (http://www.grin.com/e-book/161234/under-mining-the-power-of-communities)

Stop The Runaway Trains And Trucks

Photo by Stop Nuclear Power Network

Runaways are those that travel and proceed without our consent. The trains that contained the nuclear waste reached their destination after several attempts by green activists to disrupt the shipment from France to Dannenberg, Germany.

Now, the mode of shipment of those unwanted nuclear waste shifted from train to truck. From the railway depot in Dannenberg, the containers would be carried by trucks to Gorleben, the final destination and permanent storage site of nuclear waste in Germany.

After Chernobyl nuclear disaster, there has been insecurity surrounding nuclear use for energy production. What makes the anti-nuclear protest more compelling is the availability of renewable sources of energy. As most European countries, Germany has both the money and technology to shift from reliance on nuclear energy to renewable sources of energy. Instead, the German government surprised green activists and drew the ire of them by extending the use of power plants to ten more years of operations.

Somewhere we have to stand up if we need to see the change we want to see. And this is what green activists in Germany and elsewhere are doing to press and demand their governments to adopt projects that utilize natural resources such as solar, wind, tides, rain, and other renewable sources of energy.

The developing world looks up to Europe as the model for development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Thus, let us stop the runaway trains and trucks as symbols of old ways that do not tackle climate change head-on.

Climate Change Talks shaping up: From Copenhagen, Bonn, Tianjin to Cancun and onwards

The frustrations and disappointments of the previous climate change talks in Copenhagen have reverberated in the opening until the last day of the succeeding Bonn and Tianjin climate talks.

What happened in Copenhagen last year?

With much anticipation, the Copenhagen’s 15th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) finally presented its conference output, the Copenhagen Accord. Supposedly, the output would be the successor of the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire on 2012. But the Copenhagen Accord appears to have the elements of an agreement on virtual and conceptual generalities, to the dismay of the developing countries which will be most affected and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The group of developing countries wanted a definitive and concrete goals and pledges to arrest the worsening climate change and help them cope with the impacts of it by providing technology and funding.

Two years ago, the Bali Action Plan set the 2-year roadmap and process of finalizing a binding agreement which is now the Copenhagen Accord. Back then, the expectation was high to be able to achieve such goal of reducing greenhouse gases emissions which cause global warming.

Even lowering the expectation could not calm down the dissatisfaction on the process the Accord was drafted in its current form. Delegates to the COP15 from the industrializing countries were marginalized from the basic decision-making of an accord that was deemed too important for the current and future generations.

The Bonn talks tried to set things in perspective, taking on the experiences and progress of the previous talks. It attempted to draw a framework of acceptable points by all parties. It recognized that the process and output must be owned by countries involved, not by the few which can set the roadmap of the world based on their interests, and not for the common good of all.

The Tianjin talks placed China, said to be the largest greenhouse-gas emitter,  in the global stage to showcase its efforts to cut emissions. It was reported that much of the blame on the collapse of talks in Copenhagen was of China's doing due to its disagreement on having mechanism to verify emission cuts. Its hosting of the talks was seen as taking on the challenge of being a global important player by leading the world in the investments on renewable energy projects, and of cutting emissions by closing thousands of polluting old factories.

And the Cancun talks at the end of this year will make the progress more pronounced by having a draft of a general framework of acceptable points where negotiation of details can start. Yes, there are already common and accepted points of the draft, such as that emissions have to be cut, developed countries will help technologically and financially developing countries to mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change, and the urgency of the need to have a binding agreement to succeed Kyoto Protocol. The devilish details which again can hold the talks hostage are on what year levels should be the benchmark of emission cuts, what acceptable mechanisms can verify these cuts, and the sustainability of technological and financial assistance to developing countries.

Let us not forget that we are doing this more for the future generations and poor who will carry the brunt of our decisions and actions today. Let us not fail them. They are looking up on us. This is our opportunity to show our sincerity and responsibility to care and compassion for one Earth we have and will pass on to the next generations.