THE MINING CONTROVERSY AND DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT IN

BROOKE’S POINT, PALAWAN

A case study prepared for the Ateneo School of Government

by the Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc.

Datu Abdelwin Sangkula

Marlon Tamsi

Edited by: Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda & Dante Dalabajan

December 2007

With the Support of:

United States Agency for International Development The Asia Foundation

United Nations Development Programme

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This case study was conducted by the Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC) as part of the research component of the program on “Reforming Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) and Mining Governance: Managing Conflicts in Mining Areas” of the Ateneo School of Government, with the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development, The Asia Foundation, and the United Nations Development Programme. It is one of five case studies conducted in various mining sites around the country to determine the types and sources of mining-related conflicts and assess the needs in relation to conflict management. This study seeks to look into the conflict that arose as a result of the decision of the local government unit of the Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Province of Palawan to endorse the exploration projects of MacroAsia Corporation and Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corporation/Ipilan Nickel Corporation. It examines the varying positions and interests of key stakeholders with regard to the mining issue, the existing conflict-resolution mechanisms, if any, and the effectiveness of such mechanisms. It also seeks to determine the conflict resolution needs to guide stakeholders and other players in their future endeavors with regards to conflict management. The study makes a review of the mandated responsibilities of several concerned agencies to determine whether or not the performance of public officials are in accord with their duties and responsibilities. Since mining is all about resource and land use, in which several environmental laws serve as the overarching legal framework, a brief discussion of the applicable laws is made to clarify some legal ambiguities in relation to exploration activities of the two large-scale mining companies. To achieve the objectives of this study, the ELAC research team primarily utilized key informant interviews and focus group discussions in the data gathering process. The team also reviewed existing literature and secondary information, both published and unpublished. The study shows that the haste with which the local authorities endorsed the conduct of mining exploration activities in Brooke’s Point has sparked divisions and conflict among local stakeholders. The conflict emerged from what seemed to be a deliberate effort on the part of the mining companies and the local government officials to circumvent legal requisites concerning social acceptability and accountability. Other issues such as the potential socio-cultural and ecological impacts of mining activities in the watershed and ancestral domain areas, the legal/policy issues spawned by the conflicting resource/land uses in the proposed mining sites, and the disregard of the Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN) zonation as prescribed by law exacerbated the emerging conflict. The study recommends the following: • To effectively address the latent and emerging conflicts between local stakeholders, both

parties should agree to a mutually acceptable and transparent system of dealing with the

3

mining issue. Genuine consultative processes with the concerned stakeholders, directly or indirectly affected by mining activities, should be undertaken.

• Government regulators should strictly implement and monitor the compliance of mining

companies to environmental laws and policies, and undertake decisive administrative and/or judicial actions against the offenders and consistently uphold the welfare and interest of the general public.

• On the part of the concerned mining companies, the study argues that sincere compliance

with all the legal requirements and processes is necessary to avoid the escalation of conflict. In the interest of the general public, the engagements of mining companies with public officials and other interested parties should always be above-board and ensure that the voices of affected communities either opposing or supportive to the mining industry are fairly and objectively heard.

• On the part of the affected communities and concerned stakeholders, active involvement in

the entire decision-making process should be enhanced by improving their capacity to engage in dialogues, negotiations and conflict resolution. The participation of the local communities is, therefore, critical in any development undertaking to avoid and manage the further escalation of the conflict.

4

Introduction

The objective of the research is to map out the conflicts attendant to the mining activities in the municipality of Brooke’s Point. To achieve this, an analysis of the parties involved in the conflict, the positions they have assumed, and the standpoint from which their positions come from will be made. Factors that facilitate or hinder the resolution of the conflicts will also be examined.

Essentially, the research will look into the dynamics of the relationships among different social actors and the existing conflict-resolution mechanisms, if any, and how these mechanisms are effective in resolving issues and conflicts. Likewise, it shall also determine the conflict resolution needs to guide stakeholders and other players in their future endeavors with regard to conflict management.

Methodology The case study primarily utilized key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in the data gathering process. More or less 120 informants, including barangay officials, indigenous peoples, farmers (men and women), and non-government organization (NGO) workers and professionals, were interviewed between August 2 and September 10, 2007, using a pre-designed questionnaire. Between July and September 2007, the research team gathered and analyzed the secondary data provided by Conservation International (CI), the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff (PCSDS), the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) of Brooke’s Point, and the Brooke’s Point Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Association (BPRWSA). During the latter part of the research period, MacroAsia Corporation (MacroAsia) provided the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) with some news clippings and the company’s 2006 Annual Report. During the early part of the research period, ELAC and ASoG sent formal letters to the PCSDS, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Municipal Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN) Board of Brooke’s Point, and CI to request for relevant data and maps. Letters were also sent to the Municipal Mayor of Brooke’s Point, Punong Barangays of the six concerned barangays, and other potential key informants. Some documents and studies, including the Evaluation Reports of Mines and Geo-sciences Bureau (MGB) of the DENR and PCSDS relating to the operations of Celestial Nickel and Mineral Exploration Corporation (CNMEC) and MacroAsia, were sourced out from the existing files of ELAC. During the conduct of FGDs in the six barangays, an NGO, the SAMMI Foundation, Inc., with the assistance of another NGO, World Vision, generously provided support to ELAC in

5

coordination work and mobilization of key respondents. Two SAMMI staff members were assigned to assist the research team. The data gathered from KIIs and FGDs were then consolidated and analyzed together with the secondary data, based on the research framework jointly developed by ASoG and its research partners during the June 2007 Conflict Mapping Workshop. Scope and Limitations The study covered the Barangays of Calasaguen, Ipilan, Mambalot, Maasin, Barong-Barong and Aribungos, all in the municipality of Brooke’s Point, Palawan. Data-gathering lasted for almost four months. As anticipated, the active engagement of ELAC in the anti-mining advocacy campaign engendered reluctance among some pro-mining supporters to participate in the case study as key informants. As a result, the FGDs and KIs were partly delayed, and in some cases, prospective key informants even turned down invitations for interviews despite efforts to explain the objective of the case study. In other cases, some pro-mining supporters opted not to speak publicly on their positions regarding the mining conflict. Due to some difficulty in interviewing pro-mining residents, the research team had to rely on the views and perceptions of certain barangay officials and individuals who are generally supportive of the mining industry in their respective localities.1 On the part of the Ipilan Nickel Corporation (INC),2 the research team was advised to secure permission from the company’s head office in Manila as a pre-requisite for an interview. The ASoG also met with an officer of MacroAsia and sent a questionnaire requesting for certain documents and information on the company. However, the latter was only able to provide the ASOG with news clippings and a copy of its 2006 Annual Report.

1 During a courtesy meeting with the Local Chief Executive of Brooke’s Point, together with the Punong Barangays of the six study sites on July 30, 2007, the Punong Barangays of Maasin, Ipilan and Mambalot declined to be interviewed. The three (3) barangay officials expressed apprehension that the research will just resurrect a problem which they believe they have long settled. In the course of the meeting, wherein the Research Team patiently clarified and explained the rationale and objective of the case study, one of the Barangay officials even questioned the “motive” of the research and imputed that ELAC has a “hidden agenda” in conducting the said research. The Punong Barangay of Mambalot pointed out that they could allow the research to push through in their areas provided that mining issue should not anymore be discussed. At least two Punong Barangays present during that meeting declined to receive the joint letter of ELAC and ASOG. Aside from Mambalot and Ipilan, FGDs were held with members of the Barangay Councils of Barong-Barong, Aribungos and Maasin. The Punong Barangay of Maasin later allowed a separate FGD among his colleagues in the Council. 2 Based on the verbal statement of Engr. Gonzales, Geologist of Ipilan Nickel Corporation

6

This paper basically focuses on the mining conflict involving key stakeholders (local government units, government agencies, civil society organizations, pro- and anti-mining residents) in the areas where MacroAsia and INC are currently operating. Other potential conflicts between local stakeholders and mining companies intending or applying to operate within and outside the study sites are not included in this paper. Since mining conflict is both social and legal in nature, the study gave particular attention to the perceptions of key stakeholders (pro- and anti-mining), as well as the review and analysis of the legal precepts correlative to the issue. Background Location & Biophysical Profile of Brooke’s Point

The Municipality of Brooke’s Point is situated in the southeastern portion of mainland Palawan at a latitude of 8°47’ and longitude of 117°49’. It is bordered by the municipalities of Sofronio Espanola to the north; Bataraza, south; Rizal, west; and Sulu Sea to the east. (Please see map below.) It is located approximately 192 kilometers away from the City of Puerto Princesa, a four-hour ride by passenger vehicle.

7

Table 1: 2005 CBMS Census and Survey of Brooke’s Point

Based on the 2005 Census and Survey, the population of Brooke’s Point is 54,807, or 11,308 households, with a population density of 69 per square meter. This represents an increase of 20% compared to 57.5 in the year 2000. Of the total population, 29.11% or 15,956 (3,950 households) live in the six mining communities of Calasaquen, Ipilan, Mambalot, Maasin, Barong-Barong and Aribungos (see Table 1). The total population of Brooke’s Point is projected to reach 58,457 by the end of 2010, computed based on the population figure of 1995.3

The topography of Brooke’s Point is generally hilly. Of the 85,064.90 hectares total land area, 63.67% has a slope of 18% and above, and the remaining areas have a slope ranging from 0-18%. The six mining barangays constitute around 44.04% or 37,467.50 hectares of the total land area of the municipality (see Table 2).

Based on the Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2000-2010)4 of the municipality, 27,949.67 hectares (or 92.98% of the manipulative/multiple use land) are devoted to agricultural purposes and are being utilized for production of major crops. This figure comprises around 32.86% of the municipality’s total land area. However, the 2006 Socio-Economic Profile of the municipality shows a different figure, with only 17.87% or 15,205.21 hectares devoted to agricultural production.5

3 CLUP of Brooke’s Point as cited in the Socio-Economic Profile, Conservation International, Aug. 2007. 4 CLUP, General Land use, page 161 5 Socio-Economic Profile CY 2006, Municipality of Brooke’s Point.

Barangay Households Population Amas 495 2,081

Aribungos 857 4,322 Barong-Barong 642 3,282

Calasaguen 419 2,088 Imulnod 464 1,915 Ipilan 989 4,789

Maasin 587 2,780 Mainit 537 2,569 Malis 482 2,159

Mambalot 456 2,297 Oring-Oring 311 1,583 Pangobilian 1,362 6,918 Poblacion 1 947 4,672 Poblacion 2 620 2,887

Salogon 635 3,130 Samarinana 551 2,598

Saraza 662 3,321 Tubtub 292 1,418

TOTAL 11,308 54,807

8

Table 2: Land Area Per Barangay

LAND AREA

BARANGAYS (HAS.) (SQ.KM.)

URBAN 254.60 2.55

POBLACION 1 56.20 0.56

POBLACION 2 198.40 1.98

RURAL 84,810.30 848.10

AMAS 6,573.10 65.73

ARIBUNGOS 8,624.90 86.25

BARONG-BARONG 1,400.80 14.01

CALASAGUEN 12,121.10 121.21

IMULNOD 6,817.40 68.17

IPILAN 1,157.10 11.57

MAASIN 6,319.40 63.19

MAINIT 9,292.30 92.92

MALIS 4,563.30 45.63

MAMBALOT 7,844.20 78.44

ORING-ORING 1,456.60 14.57

PANGOBILIAN 2,213.90 22.14

SALOGON 7,259.30 72.59

SAMARINANA 4,666.30 46.66

SARAZA 3,941.80 39.42

TUBTUB 558.80 5.59

TOTAL 85,064.90 850.65

The CLUP further states that of the 27,949.67 hectares of agricultural land, around 20,546.25 hectares or 73.5% are considered to be “prime agricultural land” and therefore, part of the Network of Protected Agricultural Areas (NPAAs). These areas are considered as “restricted for conversion into non-agricultural uses” under Republic Act 8435, otherwise known as the Agriculture and Fishery Modernization Act (AFMA). In 2006 alone, around 3,873.45 hectares of rice fields yielded a harvest totaling 13, 313.36 metric tons, or an average production of 2.92 metric tons per hectare.6

6 ibid

9

Figure 1 below shows that the municipality is classified into different land uses as follows: Core Zone/Protected Use Forest Land, Buffer Zones (Restricted Use and Controlled Use), Traditional Use Land, Manipulative/Multiple Use Land and Swamps/Mangroves.

Figure 1: Existing General Land Uses of Brooke’s Point

These different zones are utilized and managed according to the Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN) strategy, a graded system of protection and development control over the whole of Palawan. The definition of and management schemes prescribed for the different ECAN zones, as stated in Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7611 or the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act are summarized below:7

Terrestrial Zones Characteristics Management CORE ZONES Included here are all types of

natural forest, which include first growth forest, residual forest and edges of intact forest, areas above one thousand (1,000) meters elevation, peaks of mountains or other areas with very steep gradients, and endangered habitats and habitats of endangered and rare species

This zone shall be fully and strictly protected and maintained free of human disruption. Exceptions, however, may be granted to traditional uses of tribal communities of these areas for minimal and soft impact gathering of forest species for ceremonial and medicinal purposes.

7 Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda, etal “The Costs and Benefits of Three Decades of Mining in Rio Tuba, Bataraza, Palawan, 2005, citing RA 7611.

Restricted Use

22%

Multiple Use

36%

Controlled Use

10%Traditional Use

19%

Core Zone

12%

swamps

1%

Core Zone

Restricted Use

Controlled Use

Traditional Use

Multiple Use

sw amps

10

Generally surrounds the core zone and provides a protective barrier.

Limited and non-consumptive activities may be allowed in this area

Encircles and provides the outer barrier to the core and restricted use area

Controlled forest extraction, like the collecting of minor forest products, and strictly controlled logging and mining may be allowed.

BUFFER ZONES (i) Restricted Use Area (ii) Controlled Use Area (iii) Traditional Use Area

Edges of intact forests where traditional land use is already stabilized

Management and control shall be carried out with the other supporting programs of the SEP

MULTIPLE USE This is the area where the landscape has been modified for different forms of land use such as intensive timber extraction, grazing and pastures, agriculture and infrastructures development

Control and management shall be strictly integrated with the other supporting programs of the SEP and other similar programs of the Government.

Under the law, the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) is mandated to implement the ECAN strategy.

Mineral Endowments Of the total applications for mining in Southern Palawan (see Status of Mining Claims attached as Annex A), more than 90% are targeting nickeliferous laterite, which is believed to be a “residually enriched deposit that is usually found in tropical and subtropical regions” like Palawan.8 According to the geological study made by Dr. Jose Almasco,9 the “ultramafic complex and associated volcanic rocks of the Mantalingahan-Pulot Range is part of the greater ophiolite belt of Palawan that is known to extend from Central Palawan and across the strait to North Borneo.” The study further claimed that the “Palawan ophiolite belt is believed to be coeval (contemporary) with other known ophiolite occurrences in the Philippines, which are hosts to significant nickel laterite deposits.” Based on the extensive test pitting conducted by Sarabat Mineral Philippines, Inc., a subsidiary company of Mighty Beaut Minerals, Inc., and the metallurgical test work performed by Sheritt International Consultants, Incorporated in 1997, the 2,835.06-hectare property of CNMEC (also referred to as “Celestial property”) has an estimated resource of approximately “77 million tones with a nickel grade of 1.25% and a cobalt grade of 0.10%.”10

8 Dr. Jose Almasco, Environmental Work Program, CNMEC, 1997 9 ibid 10 Executive Summary, Pre-Feasibility Study, H.A. Simons Ltd., 1999

11

What is nickel? Nickel, with a symbol of Ni, is a silvery shiny, metallic element with an atomic number of 28. It can be hammered into thin sheets, which means it is malleable. Nickel, iron and cobalt are the only elements known to be ferro-magnetic. Of the three, nickel is the least magnetic. When all three ferro-magnetic metals are alloyed together, an unusually strong magnet is created. This alloy conducts heat and electricity fairly well, but is not as good a conductor as pure silver or copper. Vital as an alloying constituent of stainless steel, Nickel plays a key role in the chemical and aerospace industries. It is estimated that there is about 140 million tons of nickel available in identified deposits. Eighty-four million tons or 60% of the total available nickel is in laterite deposits. A deposit in which rain and surface water leached nickel-rich rock and concentrated the nickel at or near surface of the Earth is a laterite deposit. Nickel sulfide deposits contain the remaining forty percent (56 million tons). Leading producers of nickel include Australia, Canada, Norway, and Russia. Large reserves are found in Australia, Cuba, New Caledonia, Canada, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Russia.

London-based Toledo Mining Corporation (TMC), which holds majority interest in the Celestial Nickel Project (CNP) and its affiliates, has stated that it has “defined 60 million tons of mineralization over a small footprint and it is expected that a similar tonnage of nickel laterite mineralization occurs in the MacroAsia property.”11 TMC co-owns the CNP in Brooke’s Point, Palawan with Celestial Nickel Mining and Exploration Corporation (CNMEC or Celestial), holder of MPSA-017-93-IV, which covers an area of 2,835.06 hectares.

Mining Claims and Applications

Aside from the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) areas of MacroAsia and INC, which have an aggregate area of more or less 4,000 hectares, the municipality of Brooke’s Point has approximately 33 mining claims/applications in the nature of exploration permits, small-scale permits and MPSAs. These mining claims and applications cover around 117,831.30 hectares of forestlands - almost the size of the entire Proposed Mantalingahan Range Protected Landscape, which encompasses five municipalities (see Table 3).

11 Zinnia B. Dela Peña, Philippine Star, September 6, 2007

12

Table 3: LIST OF APPLICATIONS FOR MPSA AND EXPLORATION PERMITS12 Brooke’s Point, Palawan

As of August 2007

No. Proponent Type Area Location Date of Application MineralType

1 Blueridge Min. Corp AMA- 3 2,655.00 Brooke's Point 11/19/1995 Nickel 2 MacroAsia MPSA-220 1,113.98 Brooke's Point 12/1/1995 Nickel 3 MacroAsia MPSA-221 410.00 Brooke's Point 12/1/1995 Nickel 4 Celestial MPSA-93 2,895.06 Brooke's Point 9/18/1993 Nickel 5 Celestial EPA-33 3,000.00 Brooke's Point 9/22/1997 nickel., cobalt 6 Lebach AMA-74 5,427.00 Brooke's Point 9/11/1997 nickel. Chromite 7 Celestial AMA-61 4,040.44 Brooke's Point 11/28/1995 nickel, cobalt, andesite 8 Celestial AMA-87 2,164.95 Brooke's Point 9/30/1997 nickel, cobalt

9 PL Goodman Mining PMPSA-217 7,938.00 Brooke's Point 7/5/1995 andesite, basalt

10 Mt. Peak Mining AMA-4 5,427.00 Brooke's Point 12/18/1995 Nickel 11 Galactica AMA-5 6,718.00 Brooke's Point 12/18/1995 Nickel 12 Giporlos Mining PMPSA-3 891.00 Brooke's Point 6/17/1991 nickel, chromite

13 Newton Const. & Mrkt. Corp

PMPSA-15 5,000.00 Brooke's Point 4/13/1992 Nickel

14 Silvermountain Exploration EPA-29 7,375.76 Brooke's Point 9/16/1997 nickel, cobalt

15 RT Minerals EPA-99 24.00 Brooke's Point 9/26/2006 Nickel

16 Gandara EPA-110 2,163.00 Brooke's Point 10/27/2006 nickel, chromite, cobalt, iron

17 Pacific Heights Min. Res. EPA-114 5,896.00 Brooke's Point 11/28/2006 nickel, chromite

18 Peregrino Min. Res. EPA-121 3,564.00 Brooke's Point 12/6/2006 Nickel

19 Newminco Pacific Mining EPA-124 9,631.00 Brooke's Point 12/14/2006 Nickel

20 Shuley Mines EPA-127 4,393.02 Brooke's Point 12/22/2005 nickel, chromite 21 Palawan Res. Island EPA-131 2,460.00 Brooke's Point 12/29/2006 nickel, chromite 22 Peregrino Min. Res. EPA-132 3,379.30 Brooke's Point 1/11/2007 nickel, chromite 23 Peregrino Min. Res. EPA-143 4,262.00 Brooke's Point 2/23/2007 nickel, chromite

24 Pacific Heights Min. Res. EPA-145 1,004.00 Brooke's Point 2/27/2007 nickel, chromite

25 APC Mining Corp EPA-170 2,787.41 Brooke's Point 4/25/2007 nickel, chromite

26 Amalgamated Iron Works EPA-173 3,309.00 Brooke's Point 4/30/2007 nickel, chromite

27 APC Mining Corp EPA-174 2,659.19 Brooke's Point 4/30/2007 nickel, chromite 28 San Manuel Mining EPA-182 1,690.63 Brooke's Point 5/22/2007 nickel, chromite 29 Alcorn Gold Resources EPA-196 4,225.61 Brooke's Point 5/14/2007 nickel, chromite 30 Baegil Resources EPA-203 4,779.00 Brooke's Point 6/21/2007 nickel, chromite 31 Primo Manlasing EPA-210 1,215.00 Brooke's Point 7/3/2007 nickeliferous, chromite

32 Artigiano Mineral Resources EPA-215 1,951.00 Brooke's Point 7/16/2007 nickel, chromite

33 Philippine Great Mineral Corp EPA-227 3,381.95 Brooke's Point 8/6/2007 nickel, chromite

TOTAL: 117,831.30

12 DENR-Mines and Geosciences Bureau

13

The Proposed Protected Landscape13 The South Palawan Planning Council (SPPC), composed of the municipalities of Sofronio Espanola, Quezon, Bataraza, Rizal and Brooke’s Point, is currently working for the declaration of the 120,457-hectare Mt. Mantalingahan Range as a “Protected Landscape,” under the framework of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) and the SEP Law. The council was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 24, series of 2001, issued by Gov. Joel T. Reyes. The municipality of Brooke’s Point is a member of the SPPC. Thirteen (13) of its barangays are covered by the proposed Protected Landscape, including the barangays of Calasaguen, Maasin, Ipilan, Mambalot and Aribungos14.

The Mantalingahan Range, the highest mountain in the province with an elevation of 2,086 meters, is considered “very high” in terms of biodiversity due to its “varied habitats,” and has been identified as one of the eleven Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Palawan.15

In March 2006, the Provincial Protected Area Suitability Assessment (PASA) team was formed to “determine the suitability or non-suitability of Mt. Mantalingahan as a protected area under any of the categories under the NIPAS.”16 After several months of consultations, surveys and studies, the PASA team concluded that Mt. Mantalingahan is highly suitable for integration to the NIPAS for the following reasons: • Mt. Mantalingahan is a biodiversity rich area which is ecologically important because of

the variety of habitats and the presence of rare and endangered wildlife species; • The state of naturalness of Mt. Mantalingahan is observed where approximately 74% of

the total area is old growth forest; • Mt. Mantalingahan is the main source of 45 rivers which drain the Mantalingahan range; • Mt. Mantalingahan’s economic importance is exhibited by its existing and potential contribution to the economic well-being of the local communities; • Mt. Mantalingahan is socially important due to its heritage, historical, cultural, traditional, aesthetic, educational, and recreational qualities; • The site has potential for ecotourism and recreational services; • Mt Mantalingahan is scientifically important as a site for research, education and monitoring; • The site’s social and political acceptability as a research location, the extent of

community support, accessibility with existing uses and management practices and ease 13 A protected landscape is defined as an area with coast and sea, as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. (WCPA, 2003) 14 Documentation of Gazettement Process 2005-2007, CI 15 Creating a New Protected Area for the Mantalingahan Range Forest, Palawan: Floral Survey, CI, citing Dr. Perry Ong, et al. 2002 16 Special Order of DENR-PENRO Raymundo Crisostomo dated March 20, 2006, Documentation of Gazettement Process, CI

14

of management are all indications of practicality and feasibility for the area to be protected.

The proposed protected area practically covers all areas identified as core and restricted use zones and portions of controlled use and traditional use zones (see Figure 2 below) under the ECAN guidelines. These different zones will be managed according to the Protected Area Management Plan (PAMP), which shall be developed and implemented by the different stakeholders after the issuance of a Presidential Proclamation establishing the protected area. Its implementation will also be guided by the implementing rules and regulations of various environmental laws and policies, including the Local Government Code and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA).

Figure 2: Map of the Proposed Mantalingahan Range Protected Landscape (Brooke’s Point Area)

Of the 120,457 hectares being proposed as protected area, approximately 32,262.15 hectares or 26.78 % are located in the municipality of Brooke’s Point.17

A study commissioned by CI-Philippines revealed that several endangered species listed by IUCN (The World Conservation Union) are found around Mt. Mantalingahan Range. The study concluded that there is a high floral diversity and endemism in some parts of the Range, which bolsters the need to, among other reasons, declare Mt. Mantalingahan as a Protected Landscape. In 2004, the same group released a faunal study on Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)

17 GIS Map of Proposed Mt. Mantalingan Protected landscape, Conservation International

15

in mainland Palawan, which showed that Mt. Mantalingahan has two critically endangered species, three endangered species, 13 vulnerable species and 20 endemic species.

CI is assisting the SPPC in the establishment of Mt. Mantalingahan as a protected area to help facilitate the conservation of highly important habitats and wildlife in the Range’s critical zones.

Parties to the Conflict The parties involved in the mining conflict consist of the local government units (municipal and barangay levels), national government agencies (DENR, PCSD), NGOs, people’s organizations/federations, church groups, and the mining companies. The background, mandates, roles and compositions of each of the concerned parties, as well as their respective positions and interests with regard to the mining issue are discussed below.

Local Government Units of Brooke’s Point (Municipal and Barangay) The LGU derives its mandates from the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 in the performance of its official duties and functions. Section 15 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) states that:

“Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory.”

The Code further declares that the Local Government Units shall “enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy” and mandates the State to “ensure the accountabilities of local government units” in the performance of its official duties and functions.18 Nolledo (1992) pointed out that the foregoing provision is an implementation of the provision in Article XI, section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that:

“Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

18 Republic Act No. 7160, section 2.

16

LGUs are also mandated by the Code to “share with the National Government the responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within the territorial jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of this Code and national policies.”19

The municipal government of Brooke’s Point under the administration of Mayor Cesareo Benedito, Jr. and former Vice Mayor Danilo Chan endorsed the exploration activities of INC and MacroAsia.

PCSD

The PCSD was created by the SEP Law. Section 16 of the Law states:

“SEC. 16 Palawan Council for Sustainable Development. - The governance, implementation and policy direction of the Strategic Environmental Plan shall be exercised by the herein created Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), hereinafter referred to as the Council, which shall be under the Office of the President. It shall be composed of the Members of the House of the Representatives representing the province of Palawan, the Deputy Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority, the Undersecretary of Environment and Natural Resources, the Undersecretary for Special Concerns of the Department of Agriculture, the Governor of Palawan, the Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, the President of the Mayor's League of Palawan, the President of the Provincial Chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay, the Executive Director of the Palawan council for Sustainable Development Staff as provided in Section 20 of this Act, and such other members from the public or private sectors as the majority of the council may deem necessary.”

The PCSD exercises the following powers and functions:, as defined in Section 19 of this law, to wit:

(1) Formulate plans and policies as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) Coordinate with the local governments to ensure that the latter's plans, programs and projects are aligned with the plans, programs and policies of the SEP.

(3) Call on any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the Government, and on private entities and organizations for cooperation and assistance in the performance of its functions.

19 See Chapter 1, Section 3 (i) of RA 7160

17

(4) Arrange, negotiate for, accept donations, grants, gifts, loans, and other fundings from domestic and foreign sources to carry out the activities and purposes of the SEP.

(5) Recommend to the Congress of the Philippines such matters that may require legislation in support of the objectives of the SEP.

(6) Delegate any or all of its powers and functions to its support staff, as hereinafter provided, except those which by provisions of law cannot be delegated;

(7) Establish policies and guidelines for employment on the basis of merit, technical competence and moral character and prescribe a compensation and staffing pattern;

(8) Adopt, amend and rescind such rules and regulations and impose penalties therefore for the effective implementation of the SEP and the other provisions of this Act.

(9) Enforce the provisions of this Act and other existing laws. Rules and regulations similar to or complementary with this Act;

(10) Perform related functions which shall promote the development, conservation, management, protection, and utilization of the natural resources of Palawan; and

(11) Perform such other powers and functions as may be necessary in carrying out its functions, powers, and the provisions of this Act.20

As a policy-making body, PCSD is guided by the principle of sustainable development, which is defined as “the improvement in the quality of life of its people in the present and future generations through the use of complementary activities of development and conservation that protect life-support ecosystem and rehabilitate exploited areas to allow upcoming generations to sustain development growth.”21

Under PCSD Administrative Order No. 6 series of 2000, permits, licenses or similar

instruments must have prior clearance from PCSD.22 The SEP Clearance is, therefore, a pre-requisite to any development project or program in the province.

20 Republic Act 7611, section 19. 21 Id. at section 5. 22 Section 11. Issuance of Clearance by the PCSD. Subject to the final review of the PCSD, the recommendation of the PCSDS may be affirmed or controverted. In any case, the PCSD through its Chairman shall issue either of the following form of clearance depending upon the type of project: (1) an authorization for the DENR to proceed with the processing of the ECC, processing of the certificate of non-coverage, permits, licenses, lease agreements and other similar instruments being issued by DENR; (2) a letter of accreditation and prior informed consent

18

The PCSD issued SEP Clearances to MacroAsia and INC for their mining exploration activities.

DENR

The DENR was created by Executive Order No. 192 issued on June 10, 1987. The order provided for the reorganization of Department of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources and renamed it as the DENR.

The Department is mandated to be “the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources.” It has the following objectives:

(1) Assure the availability and sustainability of the country's natural resources through judicious use and systematic restoration or replacement, whenever possible; (2) Increase the productivity of natural resources in order to meet the demands for forest, mineral, and land resources of a growing population; (3) Enhance the contribution of natural resources for achieving national economic and social development; (4) Promote equitable access to natural resources by the different sectors of the population; and (5)Conserve specific terrestrial and marine areas representative of the Philippine natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations.

The Department issued the MPSAs of MacroAsia and INC and approved their respective exploration permits.

certification; or (3) letter of denial. The authorization together with the evaluation reports shall be submitted to the DENR (through the PENRO) as bases for the latter´s subsequent processing of the aforementioned issuances. On the other hand, the accreditation and prior informed consent certificate shall be given to the proponent. If the project is denied, a letter of denial shall be sent to the proponent informing him of the reason for denial. The proponent may submit to PCSD a written appeal for reconsideration. If the appeal in reversed, the PCSD shall issue either the aforementioned authorization or letter of accreditation and prior informed consent. The decision of the PCSD on appeal shall be considered final and executory. Section 12. Issuance of Permit, Licenses, ECC´s, Lease Agreements, and Other Similar Instruments. Upon receipt of the authorization issued by the PCSD, the DENR shall either proceed with the processing of the ECC, issue a certification of non-coverage, permit, license, lease agreements or other similar instruments depending upon the instrument being secured by the proponent.

19

The Municipal ECAN Board

The Municipal ECAN Board was created through Municipal Resolution No. 26, series of 1996, in compliance of Section 37, Chapter II, Title 3 of the Revised ECAN Guidelines of the PCSD.

The Board is a multi-sectoral policy-making, implementing and coordinating body of the municipality, intended to promote the management of the environment and natural resources under the SEP and other pertinent laws and guidelines.

Among its key functions are the following: (1) facilitate the local implementation of

PCSD Resolutions and Administrative Orders related to the implementation of ECAN Guidelines and other pertinent rules, regulations and issuances, (2) initiate the passage of resolutions, municipal/barangay ordinances and regulatory measures to implement ECAN and enforce the ECAN Zoning Plan, (3) review proposed and existing projects in the light of ECAN targets and objectives, (4) harness the participation of line agencies, NGOs and the communities towards the attainment of ECAN objectives, and enhance the capability of environmental bodies and related offices, among others.23

On July 11, 2007, the Local Chief Executive issued Executive Order No. 07, Series of 2007, reorganizing the ECAN Board and delegating the chairmanship to the Municipal Vice Mayor.

The current ECAN Board under the chairmanship of the Vice Mayor is calling for a “10-

year moratorium on mining”24 in Brooke’s Point. The leadership of the Board believes that the mining industry should first prove whether “responsible mining” is indeed an attainable proposition.

Mining Companies MacroAsia Corporation

MacroAsia was incorporated in the Philippines on February 16, 1970, originally under

the name Infanta Mineral & Industrial Corporation, to engage in the business of geological exploration and development. As a mining firm, it had actually mined its leased areas in Brooke’s Point in the 1970’s. The corporation amended its Articles of Incorporation on two occasions. In January 1994, an amendment was made to change its primary purpose from geological exploration and development to engaging in the business of a holding company, and 23 See Resolution No. 26 series of 1996 24 The Chair of the ECAN Board is the Municipal Vice Mayor, Atty. Mary Jean Feliciano, who ran on anti-mining agenda and is proposing a moratorium on mining in Brooke’s Point.

20

to change its corporate name to Cobertson Holdings Corporation. In November 1995, another amendment was done to change its corporate name to its present name.

On March 28, 2006, MacroAsia received from the government a Mineral Production

Sharing Agreement (MPSA) covering 1,113.9836 hectares in Brooke’s Point, the same area that used to be mined by Infanta in the 1970s.25 The company is currently undertaking exploration activity in Barangays Ipilan, Mambalot and Maasin.26

As of 2007, the company reported that it has already “collected a total of 3,348 meters of

drill core samples based on its core drilling and test pitting over an area of approximately 300 hectares.”27

CNMEC (now operated by INC)

CNMEC is the holder of MPSA-017-93-IV, granted on August 5, 1993 and amended on April 10, 2000. The MPSA covers an area of 2,835.06 hectares situated in Barangays Ipilan and Maasin. It started its mining exploration in 1993.

The CNMEC nickel laterite property is now currently being operated by INC, a company

partly owned by London-based Toledo Mining Corporation (TMC). INC was incorporated and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 22, 2005 and its principal activity is to explore, develop and mine the Celestial/Ipilan mineral properties.28

TMC has entered into a memorandum of understanding with MacroAsia, to enable both corporations to jointly “undertake studies that will cover possible collaboration in mine development and on-site value-added processing”29 in the two properties.

Indigenous Peoples

Samahan ng mga Panglima (Panglima Assembly)

The Panglima Assembly was organized sometime in 2005 when mining became a prominent issue. The Assembly was originally composed of more than 40 Panglimas (traditional leaders), but has since increased its membership to more than 70. Panglimas exist in 15 out of the 18 barangays of Brooke’s Point.

Membership in the Assembly is exclusive to indigenous Pala’wan leaders or elders who

have royal lineage according to their traditions. The Panglima is traditionally the recognized 25 MacroAsia Corporation 2006 Annual Report. 26 Based on the document provided by MacroAsia on the list of direct impact stakeholders in Brooke’s Point, Palawan 27 ibid 28 http://www.minesite.com/companies/comp_single/company/toledo-mining-corp-plc.html 29 ibid

21

leader of an IP community based on the socio-political system of the indigenous people. Panglima Quirino Tanogan is the Pangarapan or the overall convenor of the Assembly.

The Assembly is at the forefront in the fight against large-scale mining in the

municipality of Brooke’s Point and meets regularly to discuss issues and concerns confronting the indigenous people of Brooke’s Point.

Brooke’s Point Federation of Tribal Councils (BROFETRICS)

BROFETRICS is the federation of all tribal chieftains30 in the municipality and covers

around 18 groups. It was organized by the NCIP sometime in 2000. The Federation is actively supporting the mining projects in the municipality and has been involved in the promotion of mining among the indigenous peoples’ communities throughout the municipality. Ms. Renila Dulay is the Chairperson of the federation and Mr. Juanito Lacubtan serves as the Adviser.

IP Communities

Some IP communities within and around the mining impact areas are supportive of the

mining exploration, while others are against.

The OIPAPI, an indigenous people’s organization based in Bgy. Aribungos, led the indigenous Pala’wan in rejecting the mining exploration of MacroAsia in their areas. Majority of the indigenous people in Aribungos voted “No” during the FPIC process.

In Maasin, the Kabiagan Katutubo Lupaing Ninuno Association, Inc. (KKLNA) has been actively opposing the mining operations of MacroAsia and INC. However, some of its members have already been engaged in contractual work (manual labor) by the mining companies and since then, have become inactive in anti-mining campaigns.

Aside from Aribungos, all IP communities inside the mining impact zones of MacroAsia and INC voted “Yes” in the FPIC process thus, endorsing the mining exploration.

30 Tribal chieftains are usually appointed by NCIP and not necessarily according to the cultural traditions of the concerned indigenous people. In the exercise of its political power over an IP community, the tribal chieftains are actually performing and duplicating the traditionally held political functions of the panglima.

22

NGOs

Samahan Isinusulong ang Kaayusan ng Pamayanan (SIKAP)

SIKAP is an organization of professionals and other concerned citizens of Brooke’s Point organized sometime in 2005. It was formed primarily as an anti-corruption watchdog and its advocacy was focused on corruption issues in the municipal government, such as the involvement of some local officials in illegal logging activities. It is the convenor of the Alliance on Good Governance, a loose coalition composed of NGOs, farmers’ organizations, indigenous peoples’ organizations, church groups and other professionals, and advocating for transparency and accountability in local governance.

SIKAP stood against the controversial LGU endorsement of the proposed mining activities of MacroAsia and INC and has been involved in several actions on anti-mining advocacy.

SAMMI Foundation, Inc.

SAMMI Foundation was organized in 1987 and registered with the SEC in January 1990. Originally, it was composed of farmers from Mainit and Imulnod. In 2000, SAMMI became actively engaged in the campaign against the establishment of the Hydrometallurgical Processing Plant (HPP) in Rio Tuba, Bataraza, Palawan. It has been actively involved in the anti-mining campaign in Brooke’s Point since the time of CNMEC’s exploration activity in Ipilan and Maasin in the late 1990s. Its anti-mining advocacy was triggered by SAMMI’s campaign on the protection of the children’s rights to a healthy ecology.

Currently, SAMMI has more than 900 beneficiary families in eight (8) barangays of Brooke’s Point for its “Tabod it Arap” (Spring of Hope) Project, a transformative development program introduced by its partner, World Vision.

World Vision

World Vision (WV) started its project in Brooke’s Point, Palawan in 1983. Its program started with child care, and evolved into family care and, eventually, community development.

As early as mid-1990s, WV and its partner-beneficiaries have been discussing the mining

issue. Mining has become part of the regular agenda of its children-beneficiaries during the latter’s annual congresses. In 2002, WV intensified its anti-mining advocacy in Brooke’s Point when Coral Bay Nickel Corporation started its HPP operation in Bataraza, Palawan. Its

23

campaign was undertaken together with Brooke’s Point Network of NGOs, Inc. (BPNNI), a network of 23 NGOs, farmers’ organizations, indigenous groups and church groups, working to promote participatory governance in Brooke’s Point. Augustinian Missionaries of the Philippines (AMP)

The AMP started its programs in Bgy. Bayog, Brooke’s Point in 1998 as part of the immersion program of the Commission for Social and Special Concerns of the Vicariate of Puerto Princesa. In 2003, it decided to operate independently of the Vicariate as a separate congregation. In the same year, it implemented a new project among the indigenous Pala’wan tribe in Sitio Boog in Bgy. Ipilan and Sto. Raang in Bgy. Aribungos.

When MacroAsia started the process to secure an FPIC from the Pala’wan tribe for its mining exploration in 2005, AMP stood against the mining project together with some indigenous Pala’wan. Since then, AMP has been actively involved in the anti-mining campaign in Brooke’s Point.

Irrigators’ Associations of Maasin-Calasaguen & Sabsaban (MCIA and SIA)

The Maasin-Calasaguen and the Sabsaban Irrigators’ Associations were both organized in

the 1990s through the assistance of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). The Maasin-Calasaguen Irrigators’ Association (MCIA) was registered with the SEC on March 5, 1998.

An MCIA Resolution31 states that the Communal Irrigation System of Maasin “supplies

irrigation water to four barangays of Calasaguen, Maasin, Mambalot and Ipilan comprising an area of 1,016 hectares of rice lands owned and tilled by 360 farmers.” MCIA also claims that 180 farm families are directly benefiting from the irrigation system which produces around “80 cavans of palay per cropping season per hectare.”

Both groups are opposing mining operations due to the perceived impact on watersheds

and agricultural lands.

31 Board Resolution No. 04-5 series of 2005

24

Overview of the Mining Conflict Mining activities in Brooke’s Point started in the 1970s when Nippon Mining Company of Japan (Nippon) and Infanta Mineral and Industrial Corporation (Infanta) undertook exploration activities in Barangays Ipilan and Mambalot32

Interviews reveal that the two mining companies engaged only in exploration activities

and did not proceed to large-scale mining operations. During those years, the two companies were, in fact, extensively engaged in logging activities which resulted in the cutting down of thousands of forest trees such as almaciga, ipil and other premium tree species. Based on the conservative estimate of some IP informants, more or less 20 hectares of forestland or equivalent to 5,000 trees were cut down in connection with the logging activities of Infanta.

The IP informants claimed that the logging operations of Infanta caused the death of four members of the Pala’wan tribe in two separate incidents. The first incident happened in the 1970s when three IP workers accidentally fell from a truck during logging operations, while the other incident happened few months later, when a certain Laning Immek was hit by a moving truck loaded with almaciga logs. According to the IPs, the management of Infanta only paid the cost of burial expenses and nothing more. These incidents have left an indelible mark on the consciousness of some IP residents and there is prevailing fear that similar incidents would result from the current mining activities in the IPs’ ancestral domains.

IPs also claimed that the exploration activities, particularly of Infanta, had caused the

siltation of the river (downstream) due to the erosion of loose soil materials from the test-pit and auger-drilling sites, which have affected more or less 50 hectares of agricultural land. The exploration activities of Nippon, on the other hand, had also caused the siltation particularly of the Ipilan River, which the Pala’wan tribe called Ipilan Kală (big).

To migrant farmers, however, the operations of Infanta and Nippon did not trigger

division between the companies and the local people. The two mining companies only operated for a few years and no wide-scale tensions were reported during the brief stint of exploration and logging activities, as far as key informants are concerned. However, it was reported that in 1975, several communities around Maasin, Mambalot, Ipilan, Barong-Barong and Aribungos were affected by a huge flood that hit just a few years after these two companies ceased their exploration and logging operations.

After a lull of more than two decades, the issue on mining re-emerged when CNMEC began its mining exploration activities in Maasin, in the site formerly operated by Nippon. In September 1993, CNMEC secured an MPSA from the National Government and subsequently

32 Key informants interviewed during FGD/KI sessions between August 8-16, 2007

25

entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Sarabat Minerals Philippines to “explore and develop into commercial production the nickel laterite deposits identified as the Celestial property” 33 in Brooke’s Point, Palawan. Its MPSA was amended on April 10, 2000.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some groups under the umbrella of Palawan NGO Network, Inc. (these include World Vision, SAMMI, ELAC), Restoration Foundation (RF), Samahan sa Pangangalaga ng Kalikasan (SAPAKA), and some indigenous peoples’ organizations began to undertake protest and other advocacy actions against Celestial’s alleged illegal exploration activities in Maasin.

In October 1999, the residents of Barangays Calasaguen, Maasin, Mambalot and Ipilan, Brooke’s Point signed a “petition expressing their concerns on the potential irreversible environmental damages”34 that the mining activities and future refinery plant would cause to the health, livelihood and environment of the surrounding barangays. Aside from pursuing its mining operations, Celestial was proposing for the establishment of a processing plant which “will produce briquette nickel and cobalt via sulfide precipitation and leaching, with specification-grade ammonia sulfate as a by-product.”35

In response, a multi-sectoral investigation was conducted in September 2000 to investigate the complaint. The field monitoring and investigation led by PCSDS and ELAC came up with several findings.36 Among these were the following: (1) all test pits seen were left open making it hazardous/dangerous to human beings, animals and wildlife; (2) excavated materials that were left on the surface could be subject to severe erosion that might be toxic to plants and animals on the lower grounds; (3) previously mined out areas were left unrehabilitated subject to severe degree of erosion; (4) traces of mineral elements were observed along tributaries and waterways draining to the lowlands particularly on streams, rivers and ricefield areas; (5) maintenance of the access road - particularly on providing necessary canals, stabilizing side cut thru reducing slopes and rip rapping measures, and providing/adopting dense vegetative cover to control erosion - were poorly undertaken; (6) large-scale cutting of standing trees sawn into lumber, some of which were premium or banned species within the mine-claim area, were observed; (7) the Environmental Work Program as submitted is inadequate and incomplete to mitigate foreseen environmental impacts due to mineral exploration at the higher ground, particularly on the watershed/drainage area of a medium scale irrigation system; and (8) the company failed on their social obligation to provide the correct and necessary information to the host and neighboring communities.

The investigation team recommended the following: (1) that the mining company (Celestial) secure a PCSD clearance for its exploration project, as required by Republic Act No.

33 Executive Summary, Palawan Nickel Projecy-U309A, Pre-Feasibility Study of Mighty Beaut Minerals, Inc. 34 Investigation of the Impacts of Celestial’s Exploration Activities in Brooke’s Point, ELAC-Scientific Advisory Team (SAT), 2000. 35 News Release, October 12, 2000, Mighty Beaut Minerals, Inc. (www.mightybeaut.com) 36 Intra-Office Memo of Engr. Leo Eusev Palao to PCSDS Executive Director Atty. Joselito Alisuag dated 02 October 2000 containing the findings of the investigation.

26

7611; and (2) for the PCSD to pursue appropriate action/s against Celestial on, among others, their non-compliance with the conditions set forth in their approved MPSA.

As a result of the said investigation, the PCSD ordered the mining company to “stop all

exploration activities until such time that the above issues are resolved.”37

In response, the mining company undertook some remedial measures to implement necessary work programs in compliance with their Exploration and Environmental Work Programs (EEWP). On March 22, 2001 and April 4, 2002, the mining company submitted copies of its progress reports to ELAC and DENR-MGB Region IV, respectively. The reports (accompanied with photos) contained the various activities such as fencing of test pits, tree planting, and installation of additional warning signs that were undertaken by the company in their project area.

Since the alleged illegal exploration issue was not resolved, some residents of Brgy. Maasin through the Pro-Life and Environment Friendly Association (Pro-Life) again wrote to the concerned agencies (PCSD, DENR, Governor’s Office, ELAC) on May 4, 2004, complaining of such illegal activities. The group claimed that Celestial was engaged in exploration activities without the necessary exploration permit. Thus, on May 12, 2004, the DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) conducted its own investigation and found out that the exploration/drilling activities undertaken by Celestial “is a clear violation of [Republic Act No.] 7942 and the terms and conditions stipulated in the approved MPSA.”38 The DENR-Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) then forwarded the result of the investigation to the DENR-MGB Regional Office for the latter’s action.

The Endorsements and the FPIC process

Despite the various complaints and issues raised by concerned residents, particularly of

Ipilan and Maasin, prior to and after the said investigation, some Barangay LGUs41 in the municipality of Brooke’s Point endorsed the mining exploration of Celestial.

The informants recall that, in one of the dialogues between civil society groups and local

officials, the Local Chief Executive promised to “consult” the people on the issue of mining. However, this was not done. They learned later that the endorsement for Celestial’s exploration activity had been given by the Chief Executive without the consent of his constituents.

37 Letter of PCSDS Executive Director Atty. Joselito Alisuag addressed to Mr. Denis C. Hernandez, President of CNMEC dated 29 November 2000. 38 Investigation Report of DENR-CENRO Brooke’s Point dated May 24, 2004 41 Bgy. Resolution of Bgy. Ipilan obtained by ELAC

27

On June 24, 2005, MacroAsia was able to secure a SEP Clearance from the PCSD for its mineral exploration project in Ipilan, Mambalot and Maasin. Despite the opposition raised by civil society groups, the PCSD pushed through with the issuance of the clearance. Two months later, in August 2005, the company secured the FPIC of the concerned indigenous people within the impact communities for its exploration activity.

In late 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan of Brooke’s Point endorsed the mining exploration of MacroAsia. The passage of the resolution was swift. Residents were totally oblivious of the fact that an endorsement had been given, as no public consultations were undertaken.

After the issuance of the said endorsement, civil society groups consisting of irrigators’ associations, indigenous groups, church groups, and professionals, undertook concerted actions, such as the signing of petitions, and the holding of discussions-fora, dialogues and a rally, calling for the revocation of the endorsement. When all of their initiatives and demands fell on deaf ears, the anti-mining groups initiated a Petition for Recall against the Local Chief Executive. Unfortunately, even as the Petition for Recall was signed by more or less 6,000 registered voters, the initiative did not prosper as the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) failed to hold a special election for the purpose.39

On May 10, 2006, the provincial governor wrote a letter to DENR Secretary Angelo

Reyes complaining about the issuance of the MPSA to MacroAsia in the absence of an endorsement from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In his letter, Governor Reyes claimed that “no consultation and prior approval of the LGUs concerned were secured by the applicant (MacroAsia), in blatant violation of Republic 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code), DENR Memorandum Order No. 2004-09, DENR Administrative Order No. 2005-15, and Provincial Ordinance Nos. 682 and 918 re: Mandatory Consultation and Project Endorsement Guidelines”40. The governor then requested the DENR to “immediately effect the SUSPENSION, if not, CANCELLATION of the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) of MacroAsia Corporation for violation of the pertinent laws, rules and regulations and orders.”41

Elections as an arena of engagement Unsatisfied with the government’s responses to the said controversy, the anti-mining groups saw an opportunity in the May 2007 elections to sustain their fight against mining. The group led by SIKAP came up with a complete slate for the municipal LGU positions, with the mining issue as one of its electoral agenda.

The anti-mining candidates utilized their campaign sorties as a vehicle to expose mining issues. The slate also came up with its own development agenda for the municipality. Although the group competed with political veterans, they managed to win the vice mayoralty position in

39 Interview with Nomelito Lagan & Vice Mayor Mary Jean Feliciano, leaders of SIKAP 40 Letter of Hon. Governor Joel T. Reyes to DENR Sec. Angelo Reyes dated May 10, 2006. 41 ibid

28

the person of Atty. Mary Jean Feliciano, a staunch anti-mining advocate and one of the leaders of SIKAP. Issues and Conflicts

Based on the accounts of key informants42 and a thorough review of applicable laws, policies and issuances, the following are the key conflict areas in this case:

Conflict between mining and the municipality’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan The Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for 2000-2010 of Brooke’s Point was adopted under Municipal Ordinance No. 04, series of 2001 and approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, through Resolution No. 4786, series of 2001. It identifies the 2,835.06-MPSA area of CNMEC in Barangays Maasin and Ipilan as part of the proposed “Communal Forest” of the municipality. The CLUP mandates that “protection and production forests which cover approximately 54,099 hectares or 63.60% of the municipal land area be maintained”43 as such. In fact, the LGU of Brooke’s Point had already delineated more or less 5,000 hectares located in the buffer/controlled use zone as the proposed communal forest.

The CLUP, likewise, did not identify mining as one of the municipality’s development

strategies, nor did it mention mining as one of the economic sectors. Rather, the CLUP focused on forestry, marine and fisheries, agriculture, tourism, and commerce, trade and industry as its key development sectors. In terms of industrial activities, the CLUP is geared towards “processing of agriculture and fishery products.”44 It also emphasized that the “promotion and support of agro-based, small- and medium-scale industries shall form the core of the municipal industrial strategy.”45

Therefore, as far as the CLUP is concerned, mining was never considered as a

development strategy, and that the municipality’s land and resource uses are largely devoted to agro-forestry development, watershed protection and forest management.

Mining within ancestral domains 42 Informants interviewed individually and through FGD between August-September,2007 43 Proposed General Land Use, CLUP, pg. 160 44 Development Strategies, CLUP, pg. 127 45 Ibid

29

The indigenous Pala’wan tribe has existing ancestral domain claims covering an

approximate area of 4,600 and 10,000 hectares in Barangays Maasin and Aribungos, respectively. According to the key informants, the indigenous peoples have been utilizing their lands, rivers, streams and forest areas for cultural and economic uses such as kaingin (slash and burn farming), hunting of wild boar, and gathering of almaciga resin, wild fruits, and honey. However, with the entry of mining companies in their ancestral domains, the traditional practices of the indigenous people would definitely be affected. They further claimed that the “diwata” or spirit may be driven away because of the disturbance resulting from the mining activity. Customarily, Pala’wans believe that the spirit would curse them (“paneket”) if Mt. Gantong and Mt. Kalinduan, which are believed to be sacred places (“panyaen”) are destroyed.

Other members of the tribe, however, viewed the re-entry and future operations of the mining companies as economically beneficial. They said it would help them in terms of employment. They also claimed that the affected IP communities would directly benefit from the 1% royalty share of the gross revenue of the mining company.

The IPRA Law provides that any activity or project implemented within an ancestral

domain should secure a Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) from the concerned indigenous peoples. The law emphasizes “consensus” as the operating principle in securing the FPIC of the concerned indigenous people and further stresses that the process must be in accordance with their own customary practices.

Section 3(g) of the IPRA defines FPIC as:

“Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used in this Act shall mean the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community” (emphasis supplied).

However, while the mining companies were able to secure FPIC from the affected IP communities, the process undertaken by the NCIP was not only inconsistent with the spirit of “consensus,” it was also allegedly marred by bribery and manipulation. During the general assembly of IPs in Sitio Linao, Ipilan, Brooke’s Point, on August 30, 2005, some IPs46 personally witnessed certain community leaders offering money to IP participants - including the witnesses themselves. The offer was made in exchange for their “Yes” votes during the FPIC assembly. According to them, the assembly was supposedly exclusive for the IPs of Aribungos and Linao, Ipilan but some IPs from other barangays were also allowed to participate.

46 Sworn Affidavits of Nolsita Siyang, Ingkal Lumnas, Dailan Mailan, Ulot Torina Basio Torina & Tarsan Torina

30

It should be noted that some of the witnesses subsequently retracted their statements and denied that there was bribery during the FPIC process. A few months later, one of them attested that he was threatened in connection with the statements he made.

Conflict between mining and watersheds The LGU of Brooke’s Point has identified the forest areas of Barangays Maasin and Aribungos as potential sources of water supply for the municipality. In Maasin, initiatives have already been undertaken to delineate the watershed areas through the adoption of a Barangay Resolution.47 The Mt. Gantong watershed, located in Barangay Aribungos, is also being utilized as one of the major sources of water for domestic and agricultural purposes.

While these areas have not yet been legally declared as “watershed areas,” the farmers of

Maasin, Calasaguen, Barong-Barong, Mambalot, Ipilan and Aribungos have been benefiting from two Communal Irrigation Projects (CIPs) - the Maasin–Calasaguen Communal Irrigation Project (servicing the irrigation needs of the farmers of Barangays Maasin and Calasaguen) and the Sabsaban Communal Irrigation Project (which irrigates the farmlands of Barangays Ipilan, Mambalot, Barong-Barong and part of Aribungos). These CIPs, together with three other CIPs in the municipality, collectively irrigate more or less 3,000 hectares of rice fields. These rice fields produce an average of 412,000 bags of palay, which at a conservative estimate are worth approximately P165 million, annually. These irrigation projects cost approximately P200M48.

Yet, despite the resolution submitted by the Maasin-Calasaguen Irrigators’ Association to

declare the source of irrigation as a “watershed area,” the proposal has not been acted upon by the LGU and the DENR.

Chapter VI, Article 67 of Presidential Decree 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines

states that: “any watershed or any area of the land adjacent to any surface water or overlying any ground water may be declared by the Department of Natural Resources as a protected area”.

These watershed areas are directly or indirectly facing imminent threat from the proposed

mining operations of MacroAsia and INC. The former has a mining claim which covers part of the Mt. Gantong watershed, while the latter is currently operating adjacent to the proposed watershed area of Maasin.

47 The Bgy. Council of Maasin passed a Resolution delineating and declaring the forest of Maasin as a “watershed area”. ELAC assisted in the delineation and survey of the proposed watershed area. 48 Mr. Danilo Gonzales, Manager of BPRWSA, during a key informant interview on August 9, 2007

31

However, the mining companies argue that they are currently operating outside the watershed areas and their activities are still in the exploration stage. On several occasions49 though, the mining companies would only explain in great detail the exploration activities and tend to evade the issue on the impacts of mining during actual operations.

Questionable decision-making processes of LGUs

The decision taken by key LGU officials of Brooke’s Point from barangay to municipal levels endorsing the mining exploration activities of INC and MacroAsia have been strongly criticized by some local stakeholders due to the absence of “public consultations.” Key informants feel that the endorsements did not consider the general interest and welfare of the majority of the constituents. They further believe that such hastily-made decisions have ignited the conflict and contributed to further division among the local stakeholders. They also claim that some important provisions of the Local Government Code were not followed. Among the important provisions is Section 27, which states that:

“Prior Consultations Required. - No project or program shall be implemented by government unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”

The key informants believe that the above-mentioned provision has not been observed by the local officials when the said resolutions were passed. The informants added that the said provision and other important provisions should have been the legislative prerequisite prior to the said endorsements.

Some barangay officials interviewed during the research have validated this claim.

According to them, the Resolution endorsing the exploration activity of MacroAsia was already drafted, and further claimed that there were really no deliberations made by the council, or any public hearings conducted..

According to some key informants,50 the Sangguniang Bayan briskly passed the Resolution of endorsement for MacroAsia in a single session without observing the regular legislative process. What complicated the issue further was that, when the Resolution was deliberated on the floor, the council’s Presiding Officer was the acting OIC for the Mayor.

On the part of the Barangay Council of Aribungos, it withdrew its endorsement of MacroAsia’s exploration activity partly as a result of pressure from several groups in Aribungos, including OIPAPI, AMP and the irrigators’ association. The Punong Barangay of Aribungos also 49 Multipartite Monitoring Team (MMT) meetings and public fora sponsored or attended by the mining company. 50 SIKAP personalities

32

stood up against the position taken by the other five Punong Barangays and the Local Chief Executive. Aside from the perception that some local officials have violated important provisions of the Local Government Code, those opposing the exploration activities feel that they have been betrayed by the Local Chief Executive when he defied his own public pronouncement that he would “consult” his constituents particularly on Celestial’s exploration activity.

These questionable endorsements were the very sources of conflicts among the local stakeholders.

Mining within core and restricted use zones of ECAN

The SEP Law adopted the ECAN as its main strategy. Programs and projects to be implemented in the province of Palawan must be consistent with this framework. Therefore, the PCSD shall approve or disapprove a particular project based on the following criteria:

(1) Ecological viability - The physical and biological cycles that maintain the productivity of natural ecosystems must always be kept intact;

(2) Social acceptability - The people themselves, through participatory process, should be fully committed to support sustainable development activities by fostering equity in access to resources and the benefits derived from them; and

(3) Integrated approach - This allow for a holistic view of problems and issues obtaining in the environment as well as opportunities for coordination and sharing that will eventually provide the resources and political will to actually implement and sustain SEP activities.

Thus, in issuing a SEP Clearance, PCSD is mandated to implement Section 9 of the SEP Law, which specifically states:

SEC. 9. Terrestrial Component; Management Scheme and Zonation. — The terrestrial component may be further subdivided into smaller management components for a more efficient supervision. These management components, in turn, shall each be further subdivided into the following zones: 1. Area of maximum protection or core zone — This zone shall be fully and strictly protected and maintained free of human disruption. Included here are all types of natural forest which include first growth forest, residual forest and edges of intact forest, areas above one thousand (1,000) meters elevation, peaks of mountains or other areas with very steep gradients, and endangered habitats and habitats of endangered and rare species. Exceptions, however, may be granted to traditional uses of tribal communities of these areas for minimal and soft impact gathering of forest species for ceremonial and medicinal

33

purposes. 2. Buffer zone — This area permits regulated use and may be further subdivided into three (3) sub-zones: a. Restricted use area. — Generally surrounds the core zone and provides a protective barrier. Limited and non consumptive activities may be allowed in this area; b. Controlled use area. — Encircles and provides the outer barrier to the core and restricted use areas. Controlled forest extraction, like the collecting of minor forest products, and strictly controlled logging and mining may be allowed; and, c. Traditional use area. — Edges of intact forests where traditional land use is already stabilized or is being stabilized. Management and control shall be carried out with the other supporting programs of the SEP. 3. Multiple/manipulative use area. — This is the area where the landscape has been modified for different forms of land use such as intensive timber extraction, grazing and pastures, agriculture and infrastructure development. Control and management shall be strictly integrated with the other supporting programs of the SEP and other similar programs of the Government” (emphasis mine).

However, both the mining claims of MacroAsia and INC are partly situated within core

and restricted use zones of Mantalingahan Range which are considered as “non-allowable areas” based on the updated 2005 ECAN map of the municipality. The updated ECAN map was adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Brooke’s Point in 2005.51 Despite this, the PCSD issued SEP Clearances to the two companies in 2005. The PCSD has not given any justification for the issuance.

Moreover, most of the areas within and around Mantalingahan Range either have existing

mining claims, or are subject of applications for exploration and mining operation. Some stakeholders believe that the re-entry of extractive industries in an area as ecologically important as Mt. Mantalingahan is diametrically opposed to the primary objective of declaring the area as a Protected Landscape.

Conflicting interests and perceptions of local stakeholders on mining

There are divergent interests and perceptions among local stakeholders as far as the issue

on impacts and benefits of mining is concerned. Such contrasting and diverse interests constitute one of the causes of conflict and tension among the concerned parties.

51 See Municipal Resolution No. 2005-110

34

Aside from the position taken by the Catholic Church52 on the mining issue, which is anchored not only on environmental grounds, but also on the social and moral implications of mining in the life of its flock and on the “integrity of Creation”, the civil society organizations in Brooke’s Point generally anchor their opposition on the social, economic and environmental implications of mining.

They believe that mining should not be considered as a development option at all, as far as Brooke’s Point is concerned. They claim that the municipality has other options for improving the local economy and addressing poverty. The group asserts that the LGU should prioritize, enhance and support the agricultural and tourism sectors because fishery and agricultural resources are still abundant, and the eco-tourism business has potential.

However, other sectors, groups and individuals have different views and strategies on economic development and poverty alleviation. The pro-mining groups (such as BROFETRICS, and some local officials) believe that mining is economically beneficial. They argue that given the current state of the local economy and the living conditions of the people, mining is an alternative because it would substantially contribute to the local coffers in the form of taxes and socio-economic projects, especially in the impact communities. They say that the huge mineral deposits beneath the mountains and forests should now be extracted and utilized while the demand for nickel and other metallic minerals are still high in the international market.

Among the tribal chieftains and their followers, the 1% royalty share of the indigenous

peoples as well as the socio-economic benefits (e.g., jobs, water pumps, scholarships, and livelihood projects) given by mining companies are enough reasons for their continued support to the mining industry.

However, IP groups under the Panglima Assembly view these socio-economic projects and contractual job offers to the locals as instruments of the mining companies to entice residents to support the exploration activities. They observed that this approach sowed divisions among the indigenous peoples.

Analysis and Recommendations

The case study shows that concealment, undue haste and circumvention, especially on matters involving public interest, make up a recipe for social conflicts. The exclusion of the majority of the local stakeholders in the decision-making process, coupled with a widely perceived circumvention of the rule of law, only strengthen the resolve of some constituents to continually distrust their public officials. The perception of other stakeholders that there seemed to be a manipulation of the process of endorsement only heightened the conflict and further strained the relationship among local stakeholders.

52 Statement of Concern issued by the Bishop, Clergy and the Association of Religious Women of the Apostolic Vicariate of Puerto Princesa, 2007.

35

While the tension is relatively manageable and the relationship among the different stakeholders largely remains to be civil, the situation has the potential to escalate if the following concerns, which can serve as “conflict flashpoints,”53 remain unattended: 1) the impact of mining on watersheds and irrigation, the cultural and economic practices of the IPs, and forest and agricultural sustainability; and 2) the perceived propensity of some government authorities to favor mining companies (e.g., endorsement without public consultations), and the apparent lack of transparency on the part of the mining companies to disclose important information to the public, especially on the negative impact of their mining activities (information was largely devoted to exploration activities), which only exacerbates the tension within the communities. Although the mining companies have been conducting series of consultations and information dissemination campaigns to inform the public on the extent of their projects, participants to these activities are usually those who are in favor of mining. Aside from the above-stated factors, conflict is essentially induced by the divergent views of the local stakeholders on mining. This disparity is anchored on economic benefits on one hand, and environmental impacts on the other. The pro-mining groups and individuals believe that mining is one of the alternative solutions to address the social and economic inequities such as unemployment, low income and limited opportunities. Therefore, the extraction and utilization of huge mineral deposits beneath the mountains and forests are necessary while there is a high demand for nickel and other metallic minerals in the international market.

On the other hand, the anti-mining groups believe that mining should not be considered as an option at all for Brooke’s Point. They argue that the municipality is still rich and productive in terms of fishery and agricultural resources. The group asserts that the agricultural and tourism sectors should be prioritized, enhanced and supported by the local government unit of Brooke’s Point in order to improve the local economy and uplift the living conditions of its constituents Based on the foregoing, this study recommends the following courses of actions to prevent the escalation of conflicts and eventually pave the way towards the resolution of the identified “conflict flashpoints”: (1) Establishment of mutually acceptable and transparent mechanism/s and strengthening of existing structures The conflicting parties, especially the LGUs and civil society organizations, should agree on a functional mechanism that is mutually acceptable, inclusive and transparent to the public. The rationale for instituting this mechanism is to facilitate the resolution of emerging issues and grievances by purposively encouraging the participation of different stakeholders in the entire process of conflict resolution. Existing bodies can be tapped for this purpose, such as the ECAN Board which is mandated to oversee, monitor and make policy recommendations in relation to the implementation of the SEP law and other environmental laws. Regular dialogues and participatory, community-oriented forms of grievance mechanisms can be initiated within the ECAN structure. Other existing administrative structures, such as the Municipal Development

53 Michael Carson et al. of Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, coins key issues that are important determinants of conflict as “conflict flashpoints”

36

Council, Barangay Development Councils and Lupon ng Tagapamayapa can be strengthened and utilized in resolving disputes. By installing an effective grievance procedure down to the community level, conflicts or issues are immediately settled and/or clarified. The absence of a conflict resolution mechanism at the community level, as this study showed, has contributed to the building up of a complicated web of issues, which are sometimes, irrelevant to the main points of the controversy. Strengthening existing administrative structures, which are multisectoral and multidisciplinary in nature, is necessary. Through the involvement of different sectors and key players, issues or concerns are decided collectively rather than through the exclusive discretion of the politically dominant structures of government (e.g. Sangguniang Bayan). Thus, decisions can be collegial and there is greater probability that the processes involved (including the structure itself and the issues to be resolved) are acceptable to all. However, this mechanism should not negate the mandated duties and responsibilities of elected officials. Rather, it should democratize the decision-making process, especially on crucial issues like mining. As Stephen Tyler54 suggests, there is a need “to sort out new mechanisms and institutions to manage these conflicts and resolve them productively in the interests of both long-term sustainability and short-term economic feasibility”. In the process of resolving conflicts especially between LGUs and civil society organizations, a dialogical approach can be an effective means. Through reflective dialogue,55 parties can consider the wider interests of different stakeholders rather than just their respective positions. Through this approach, the quality of conversation is transformed from discussion and debate to collective inquiry (Isaacs 1999), thus, effectively resolving the issue at hand. The prevailing suspicions and distrust are objectively clarified and reflected on by both parties. (2) Strict implementation of applicable laws, policies and ordinances One of the key factors that fueled the conflict is the failure to adhere to the provisions of the applicable laws. Thus, government authorities especially the LGUs, DENR, PCSD and NCIP should fairly and judiciously implement the relevant laws, policies and issuances, and perform its official duties according to their respective institutional mandates. Several provisions of various laws, such as, but not limited to, Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code, Section 9 of the SEP Law, Chapter VI, Article 67 of Presidential Decree 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines, Chapter II, Section 3 (g) of IPRA Law and Municipal Ordinance No. 04 series of

54 Dr. Tyler is the founder of Adaptive Resource Management Ltd, an interdisciplinary consulting practice specializing in community-oriented natural resource management and adaptation studies. From 1997-2005, he was Team Leader for the Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program of the International Development Research Centre. 55 Isaacs (1999) uses the term “reflective dialogue” to refer to a process “where you become willing to think about the rules underlying what you do- the reasons for your thoughts and actions...”

37

2001, are just few of several laws and issuances that need to be implemented in order to mitigate the conflict and strengthen public trust. Strong political will is, therefore, an imperative. On the part of the mining companies, it should motu proprio comply with all the applicable laws relating to mining operations. Socio-economic activities (e.g. scholarships, medical missions, livelihood projects) should not be used to justify mining activities. Some sectors perceive these as “instruments of propaganda” on the part of the mining companies to generate public support and gain endorsement from the local government units on their current exploration activities. Likewise, consultation activities conducted by the companies should be inclusive and participatory, and its negotiations with local officials should be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Based on this premise, the question on permissibility and non-permissibility of mining activities should be decided on the merits, including the original intent of the law, and its social acceptability. It should be noted, however, that the procedures of getting social acceptance to a particular project from the local stakeholders should be free from any manipulation, bribery or coercion, and above all, genuinely transparent. (3) Enhancement of skills and knowledge of local stakeholders on conflict resolution and management Some stakeholders, for or against mining, especially those who are affiliated with organized groups and are key leaders of these organizations or groups, have demonstrated a relatively high level of knowledge on the mining issue. Both parties believe that their varying positions and perspectives on mining is a source of conflict. However, there is a necessity to enhance the awareness of ordinary community members on the issue as well as their basic skills in conflict resolution at the barangay level. In many instances, these parties have very little awareness of the options for and actual steps toward the resolution of the conflict. Well-informed and educated stakeholders are extremely crucial to conflict resolution. Trainings on conflict management and negotiation-coaching (as has been done by some NGOs) can be undertaken, based on a training needs assessment of concerned communities.

(4) The use of independent, neutral and third-party to facilitate the resolution of the conflict There is a pervasive notion in the affected areas that conflict can be diffused. Parties to the conflict opt not to discuss the causes of conflict either because of mutual distrust or it might resurface other issues which could fan the conflict. Although there were several attempts or opportunities in the past to interact and dialogue, these initiatives were not sustained nor did they produce concrete results. In fact, public fora where parties to the conflict were brought together have resulted to heated confrontations and innuendos. A third party to facilitate the resolution of the conflict may be needed to act as a go-between. The third party, which would play as an independent mediator, should maintain a level-headed treatment of the issues, and should not take the side of any of the parties. Instead, its task

38

should be to look at the causes of the tension with the view of trying to find the middle ground between the parties. Ideally, government agencies such as PCSD and the LGUs can facilitate the conflict resolution process. However, these agencies and other existing government agencies are not “credible” to perform this task because of the perceived partisan involvement of some government officials in the endorsement and approval of mining exploration activities. Thus, the role of an independent-mediator, which will be decided upon by both parties, is crucial. It is important to note, however, that in the process of conflict resolution, the LGU officials and leaders of civil society organizations should take more active roles as participants in the mediation process. Among the critical issues that a third-party mediator may be able to facilitate are the issues related to the processes and requirements of LGU endorsements on proposed projects such as mining and the development direction of the municipality as far as CLUP is concerned. The CLUP, which serves as the over-arching development framework, can serve as a reference for the development strategies to be pursued. (5) Review of the ECAN guidelines in the SEP law in relation to other environmental laws and mining activities The ECAN is a planning and management tool which can be used to determine the carrying and non-carrying capacity of the physical environment on extractive industries like mining. However, there is a need to review the ECAN Guidelines and come up with a more definitive one for the purpose of strengthening the strategies and plans identified by the CLUP of Brooke’s Point. In the context of the mining claims of MacroAsia and INC, the entire processes prior to the endorsement of their respective MPSAs and exploration activities should be thoroughly reviewed in the context of the SEP Law, the Mining Act of 1995 and the Municipal Ordinance which adopted the CLUP. An external review by an independent group or person may be considered if only to enhance the credibility of the review process. However, the process as well as the results of the review must be acceptable to both parties. An example of this effort is the review undertaken by Dr. Emil Salim, Former Minister of Environment for Indonesia, as Eminent Person to the World Bank Group (WBG)’s Extractive Industry Review.

39

Table of Abbreviations

AFMA - Agriculture and Fishery Modernization Act AMA - Application for Mineral Agreement AMP - Augustinian Missionaries of the Philippines Alliance -Alliance for Good Governance ASOG - Ateneo School of Government BHS -Barangay Health Stations BROFETRICS - Brooke’s Point Federation of Tribal Councils BPNNI - Brooke’s Point NGOs Network, Inc. BPRWSA -Brooke’s Point Rural Waterworks and Sanitation CADT -Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CBMS -Community-Based Monitoring System CBNC -Coral Bay Nickel Corporation CI-P - Conservation International-Philippines CIP -Communal Irrigation Project CNMEC/Celestial - Celestial Nickel and Mining Exploration Corporation CNP - Celestial Nickel Project CSSC - Commission on Social and Special Concerns CLUP - Comprehensive Land Use Plan DepED -Department of Education DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources ECAN - Environmentally Critical Area Network ECAN Board -Municipal ECAN Board EEWP - Exploration and Environmental Work Plan EP - Exploration Permit ELAC - Environmental Legal Assistance Center FGD -Focus Group Discussion FPIC - Free, Prior and Informed Consent HDR -Human Development Report HPP - Hydrometallurgical Processing Plant IBA - Important Bird Area INC - Ipilan Nickel Corporation INFANTA - Infanta Mineral and Industrial Corporation IP -Indigenous People IPRA - Indigenous People’s Rights Act IPO - Indigenous People’s Organization IUCN -International Union for the Conservation of Nature JVA - Joint Venture Agreement KBA - Key Biodiversity Area KI - Key Informant KKK -Kabuhayan, Kaunlaran, Kalikasan KKLNA -Kabiagan Katutubo Lupaing Ninuno Association, Inc. LGC -Local Government Code

40

LGU - Local Government Unit MAC/MacroAsia - MacroAsia Corporation MBMI - Mighty Beaut Minerals, Inc. MCIA - Maasin-Calasaguen Irrigators’ Association MCLUP - Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan MGB - Mines and Geosciences Bureau MPDO - Municipal Planning and Development Office MPSA - Mineral Production Sharing Agreement NCIP - National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NGO -Non-Governmental Organization NIA -National Irrigation Authority NIPAS - National Integrated Protected Area System NIPPON - Nippon Mining Company of Japan NPAA -Network of Protected Agricultural Areas OIPAPI -Organization of Indigenous People for Action in Palawan, Inc. PA - Protected Area PAMP - Protected Area Management Plan PASA - Protected Area Suitability Assessment PCSD - Palawan Council for Sustainable Development PMRB - Provincial Mining and Regulatory Board PNNI - Palawan NGO Network, Inc. PO - People’s Organization Pro-Life - Pro-Life and Environment Friendly Association RA - Republic Act RF - Restoration Foundation RHU -Rural Health Unit RTNMC - Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation SAPAKA - Samahan sa Pangangalaga ng Kalikasan SAMMI - Samahan ng mga Magsasaka sa Imulnod at Mainit SEP - Strategic Environmental Plan SIA -Sabsaban Irrigators’ Association SICI - Sheritt International Consultants, Inc. SIKAP - Samahan Isinusulong ang Kaunlaran ng Palawan SMP -Special Mining Permit Sarabat -Sarabat Minerals Philippines, Inc. SPPC -Southern Palawan Planning Council SPTF - Special Provincial Task Force SSMP - Small-Scale Mining Permit TMC - Toledo Mining Corporation WV - World Vision

41

References

1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Municipality of Brooke’s Point (2000-2010) 2. Municipal Socio-Economic Profile, 2006

3. Socio-Economic Profile, Municipality of Brooke’s Point, Conservation International, August 2007

4. Dr. Jose Almasco, Environmental Work Program (EWP) submitted to DENR-MGB by the Celestial Nickel Mining and Exploration Corporation (CNMEC), 1997 5. Pre-Feasibility Study, H.A. Simons Ltd., 1999

6. The Local Government Code of 1991, Annotated, 1992 First Edition, authored by Jose N. Nolledo

7. Hilson, G., An Overview of Land Uses Conflict in Mining Communities 8. Michael Carson etal, Managing Mineral Resources through Public-Private Partnership, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 9. Mr. Danilo Gonzales, Manager of BPRWSA 10. Documentation of Gazettement Process, Conservation International 11. Creating a New Protected Area for the Mantalingahan Range Forest, Palawan: Floral Survey, Conservation International-Phils. 12. Zinnia B. Dela Peña, Philippine Star, September 6, 2007 13. Water Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree 1067 14. Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan (SEP Law) RA 7611 15. IPRA Law, RA 8371 16. 2006 Annual Report, MacroAsia Corporation 17. Local newspapers: Repetek ( Sept 2006), Palawan Times (Aug-Sept 2006), Palawan Mirror (March 2007) 18. Tariq Bakheit, Mining & Land Access Issues In South African Mineral Laws 19. Atty. Grizelda Mayo_Anda & Katherine Mana-Galido, “The Costs and Benefits of Three Decades of Mining in Rio Tuba, Bataraza, Palawan”, AdMU-ASOG & ELAC

42

20. Dr. Stephen Tyler, Policy Implications of Natural Resources Conflict Management, IDRC/CRDI 22. Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Environmental Investigation Report, 2000 23. website of: www.minesites.com 24. website of: www.chanrobles.com 25. website of : www.idrc.ca/en 26. websites of: www.amazon.com, www.andrews.edu/-freed/metaphorsOnline1.pdf

43

APPENDICES A. Key Informant Interview (KII) Questionnaire

CONFLICT MAPPING IN THE MINING COMMUNITIES OF BROOKE’S POINT, PALAWAN

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KII)

A. INFORMANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION • Ano po ang pangalan nila? Ilang taon na po kayo? May asawa? Binata? Dalaga? Ano ang

inyong katungkulan sa bgy/komunidad/o kinabibilangang samahan/kumpanya? Gaano na po kayo katagal na nanunungkulan o naging kabahagi ng samahan/bgy/kumpanya?

• Gaano na kayo katagal naninirahan dito sa bgy? • Ano ang kasalukuyang hanapbuhay niyo dito sa bgy? B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE BGY/COMMUNITY • Kailan naitatag ang barangay? Bakit tinawag na ___(name of bgy.)? sino ang kauna-

unahang kapitan (o namumuno) sa bgy? • Anu-ano ang mga matingkad o mahalagang pangyayari na naranasan ng inyong barangay

kaugnay sa pulitika (e.g.pamumuno)? Ekonomiya (e.g. hanapbuhay noon)? Panlipunan (natural disaster, armed conflict, in-migration, etc.)? at kultura noon? Isa-isahin po natin..

• Anu-ano ang mga usapin o pangyayari noon na nagkaroon ng kaguluhan o di-pagkakaunawaan ng mga tao/grupo at ng mga lider? Ano ang batayang mga kadahilanan ng kanilang kaguluhan o di-pagkakaunawaan? Sino-sino ang mga ito? Ano ang kanilang mga posisyon sa mga isyung nabanggit?

• Ano ang mga naging hakbang, kung mayroon man, upang maresolba ang mga usapin o gusot ng magkabilang panig?

• Ano na ang naging kinahinatnan ng mga usaping iyon? Ano ang naresolba at ano ang hindi pa?

• Ano ang inyong naging papel sa mga usaping iyon? C. THE CURRENT SITUATION: PROBLEMS, CONCERNS, CONFLICTS AND THE

PARTIES INVOLVED • Ano-ano ang mga kasalukuyang usapin o problema ang kinakaharap ng inyong

komunidad?

44

• Anu-ano ang mga matitingkad na usapin na nagdulot ng pagkakahati-hati o di-pagkakaunawaan ng ibat-ibang grupo ng mamamayan at ibang ahensya o kumpanya sa lugar?

• Sinu-sino ang mga magkakatunggaling grupo o kalahok sa nasabing usapin ? • Gaano na katagal sumulpot ang problema o usaping ito? Ano ang naging mga dahilan? • Sa anong pamamaraan (hal. porma ng pagkilos) ipinapakita o isinasalarawan ang

problema ng mga magkakatunggaling grupo/sektor/indibidwal? • Ano ang antas ng kamulatan ng bawat partido sa kinakaharap na usapin? Pakisalarawan

po. • Anu-ano ang mga usapin o problema na hinahanapan ng lunas o kasalukuyang

nireresolba? Papaano po ito isinasagawa? • Anu-ano naman po ang mga problema o usapin na hindi nilalapatan ng lunas o di-

nireresolba? At bakit po? • Papaano nagpapakialaman ang mga magkatunggaling partido? Papaano sila

nagtutulungan upang tuloy-tuloy ang pag-uusap tungkol sa pinagbabangayang usapin? • Anu-ano ang mga konkretong posisyon o usapin na pinapaninidigan ninyo o ng bawat

partido o grupo kaugnay sa usaping pagmimina? Ano ang kaibahan ng inyong posisyon sa iba? (hal. No to mining, moratorium on mining, atbp.)

• Ano ang mga kaakibat na kadahilanan sa nasabing posisyon o paninindigan? (Ito ay maaaring may kaugnayan sa kalikasan, pang-ekonomiya, panlipunan, ideolohiya, panligal, atbp. Pakitukoy po at pakisalaysay).

• Ano ang papel na ginagampanan ng bawat partido kaugnay sa debate sa usapin ng pagmimina sa inyong lugar? Ano sa palagay niyo ang inyong papel sa usaping ito? Ano naman po ang tingin nyo ang papel ng kabilang partido?

D. THE EVENTS • Ano ang mga pangyayari na nagtulak o nagbunsod sa isang sitwasyon ng kaguluhan?

(Kunin ang chronology of events sa pananaw ng magkabilang panig).

ITO AY MAAARI NAGSIMULA DAHIL SA MGA SUMUSUNOD: -Filing of applications for various permits/clearances (e.g., exploration permit, MPSA, ECC) -When and how other stakeholder groups learned of application -FPIC process -EIA process -Public hearings and dialogues held -Petitions and counter-petitions sent -Adoption of resolutions/positions by the pertinent Sanggunian -Grant of permits/clearances -Commencement of exploration/operations -Accidents that may have occurred during exploration/operations -Problems observed/experienced by the communities -Mobilizations -Filing of court or administrative cases Social development and community relations initiatives by the mining company

45

• Ano ang isinagawang hakbang ng isang partido sa isinagawang aksyon ng kabila? Ano

ang mga tugon ng magkabilang panig? E. THE RELATIONSHIP • Ano na ang sitwasyon ng pag-uugnayan ng mga magkabilang partido? Pakisalaysay po

paano nakarating sa ganitong yugto ang kanilang mga relasyon. • Nagkaroon ba ng mga oportunidad sa nakaraan upang magkaroon ng pag-uugnayan ang

magkabilang partido? Maari sa pamamagitan ng pagsusulat, dayalogo o pagpupulong. Ano ang kinalabasan ng nasabing pag-uugnayan?

• Ano ang inyong pananaw sa kabilang partido? Ano sa palagay niyo ang motibo o interes sa pinaninindigang posisyon ng kabilang partido?

• Ano ang iba’t-ibang ugnayan sa loob ng inyong grupo? Paano humantong ang inyong grupo sa posisyong pinaninindigan nyo ngayon? Sino-sino ang may impluwensya sa loob? At nakikipag-ugnayan sa kabilang partido?

• Sa kasalukuyan, ano ang pamamaraan o daluyan ng komunikasyon ng magkabilang partido?

• Gaano kayo kahanda na buksan and daluyan ng komunikasyon sa kabilang partido?

F. THE CONFLICTS • Anu-ano ang mga pinagtutunggaliang mga usapin o punto ng iba’t-ibang partido? • Maglahad ng mga partkular na sitwasyon ng pagbabangayan o tunggalian. Sino-sino ang

mga nagtutunggali? Ano ang kasalukuyang sitwasyon ng mga tunggaliang ito? Ito ba ay naresolba? Kung hindi bakit? Kung oo papaano nyo niresolba?

• Ano ang mga mekanismo na meron sa pagresolba ng bangayan? Mayroon bang tardisyunal na pamamaraan? Gaano kaepektibo ang mga mekanismong ito?

G. THE NEEDS • Ano ang mga salik o dahilan na nakahahadlang o nakalilimita sa inyo sa

pagsasagawa/pagsasakatuparan ng inyong papel (role)? Ano naman sa palagay niyo ang bagay o salik na nakahahadlang o nakalilimita sa ibang partido upang gawin nila ang kanilang mga papel sa usaping ito?

MAARI ITO AY INTERNAL O EXTERNAL NA MGA SALIK GAYA NG:

• Kakulangan sa kapasidad - teknikal, pinansyal, legal, atbp. • Kakulangan ng tauhan (personnel) • Panlipunan o pampulitikang kalagayan o kaayusan

46

• Ano ang maaaring gawin upang matugunan ang mga hadlang na ito? Ano ang mga posibleng estratehiya (inaasahan sa bawat isa, sa sektor na kinabibilangan at sa ibang sektor)?

• Ano ang mga espisipikong hakbang na maaaring gawin upang matugunan ang nasabing problema?

B. Focus Group Discussion Guide Questions

CONFLICT MAPPING IN THE MINING COMMUNITIES OF BROOKE’S POINT, PALAWAN

GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR FGD

TOPIC/ISSUE FOCUS QUESTIONS TOOLS/ METHOD

REMARKS

• Anu-ano ang mga matitingkad o mahahalagang usapin na pinagdaanan ng inyong barangay? (hal. Pulitikal, ekonomiya, panlipunan, kultura, atbp)

Historical Transect

• Batay dito ano ang mga isyu o pangyayari na nagkaroon ng kaguluhan o di-pagkakaunawaan ang mga tao o grupo at ng mga lider? Ano ang dahilan? Sino-sino ang mga ito? At ano ang kanilang mga posisyon sa isyu?

Matrix #1

A. Historical Background of the Bgy/ Community

• Ano na ang naging kinahinatnan ng mga usaping iyon? Ano ang naresolba at ano ang hindi pa? Ano ang inyong naging papel noon sa mga nabanggit na kaguluhan?

Matrix #2

B. The Current Situation: Problems, Concerns, Conflicts and Parties Involved

• Anu-ano ang mga matitingkad na usapin na nagdulot ng pagkakahati-hati o di-pagkakaunawaan ng ibat-ibang grupo ng mamamayan at ibang ahensya o kumpanya sa lugar?

• Sinu-sino ang mga magkakatunggaling grupo o kalahok sa nasabing usapin ?

• Gaano na katagal sumulpot ang problema o usaping ito? Ano ang naging mga dahilan?

• Sa anong pamamaraan (hal. porma ng

Matrix #3

47

pagkilos) ipinapakita o isinasalarawan ang problema ng mga magkakatunggaling grupo/sektor/indibidwal?

• Ano ang antas ng kamulatan ng bawat partido sa kinakaharap na usapin? Pakisalarawan po.

Matrix #4

• Anu-ano ang mga usapin o problema na hinahanapan ng lunas o kasalukuyang nireresolba? Papaano po ito isinasagawa? Anu-ano naman po ang mga problema o usapin na hindi nilalapatan ng lunas o di-nireresolba? At bakit po?

Matrix #5

• Anu-ano ang mga konkretong posisyon o usapin na pinapaninindigan ninyo o ng bawat partido o grupo kaugnay sa usaping pagmimina? Ano ang kaibahan ng inyong posisyon sa iba? (hal. No to mining, moratorium on mining, atbp.)

• Ano ang mga kaakibat na kadahilanan sa nasabing posisyon o paninindigan? (Ito ay maaaring may kaugnayan sa kalikasan, pang-ekonomiya, panlipunan, ideolohiya, panligal, atbp. Pakitukoy po at pakisalaysay).Ano ang papel na ginagampanan ng bawat partido kaugnay sa debate sa usapin ng pagmimina sa inyong lugar? Ano sa palagay niyo ang inyong papel sa usaping ito? Ano naman po ang tingin nyo ang papel ng kabilang partido?

Free-flowing discussion

• If possible, identify the number of people with varying degree of position on mining issue

C. The Events • Ano ang mga pangyayari na nagtulak o nagbunsod sa isang sitwasyon ng kaguluhan? (Kunin ang chronology of events sa pananaw ng magkabilang panig).

• Ano ang isinagawa ninyong hakbang at ano ang naging aksyon ng kabilang partido? Ano ang mga tugon ng magkabilang panig?

Listing of events and discussion

• To facilitate the discussion, post the different stages/actions (e.g. FPIC process, consultation) which are possibly the triggering factor of the conflict and get the consensus of the group on the matter.

48

• Ano na ang sitwasyon ng pag-uugnayan ng mga magkabilang partido? Pakisalaysay po paano nakarating sa ganitong yugto ang kanilang mga relasyon.

• Nagkaroon ba ng mga oportunidad sa nakaraan upang magkaroon ng pag-uugnayan ang magkabilang partido? Maari sa pamamagitan ng pagsusulat, dayalogo o pagpupulong. Ano ang kinalabasan ng nasabing pag-uugnayan?

• Ano ang inyong pananaw sa kabilang partido? Ano sa palagay niyo ang motibo o interes sa pinaninindigang posisyon ng kabilang partido?

Free- flowing discussion

D. Relationship Internal dynamics of the group

• Ano ang iba’t-ibang ugnayan sa loob ng inyong grupo? Paano humantong ang inyong grupo sa posisyong pinaninindigan nyo ngayon? Sino-sino ang may impluwensya sa loob? At nakikipag-ugnayan sa kabilang partido?

• Sa kasalukuyan, ano ang pamamaraan o daluyan ng komunikasyon ng magkabilang partido?

• Gaano kayo kahanda na buksan ang daluyan ng komunikasyon sa kabilang partido?

Free-flowing discussion

E. The Conflicts

• Anu-ano ang mga pinagtutunggaliang mga usapin o punto ng iba’t-ibang partido? Maglahad ng mga partikular na sitwasyon ng pagbabangayan o tunggalian. Sino-sino ang mga nagtutunggali? Ano ang kasalukuyang sitwasyon ng mga tunggaliang ito? Ito ba ay naresolba? Kung hindi bakit? Kung oo papaano nyo niresolba?

• Ano ang mga mekanismo na meron sa pagresolba ng bangayan? Mayroon bang tardisyunal na pamamaraan? Gaano kaepektibo ang mga mekanismong ito?

Matrix #6

F. The Needs • Ano ang mga salik o dahilan na nakahahadlang o nakalilimita sa inyo sa pagsasagawa/pagsasakatuparan ng inyong papel (role)? Ano naman sa palagay niyo

49

ang bagay o salik na nakahahadlang o nakalilimita sa ibang partido upang gawin nila ang kanilang mga papel sa usaping ito?

• Ano ang maaaring gawin upang matugunan ang mga hadlang na ito? Ano ang mga posibleng estratehiya (inaasahan sa bawat isa, sa sektor na kinabibilangan at sa ibang sektor)?

• Ano ang mga espisipikong hakbang na maaaring gawin upang matugunan ang nasabing problema?

•

TOOLS:

1. Historical Transect

(YEARS OF CREATION)

(every 5 years) 1995-2000 2000-2005

2. Matrix #1

3. Matrix #2

4. Matrix #3

ISYU/ BANGAYAN

DAHILAN NG KAGULUHAN

SINO-SINO ANG MGA KALAHOK

POSISYON NG BAWAT GRUPO O TAO

ISYU/ BANGAYAN

MGA NAGING HAKBANG SA PAGRESOLBA

RESULTA NG NAGING HAKBANG

ANO ANG NARESOLBA AT ANO ANG HINDI

ANO ANG INYONG NAGING PAPEL SA ISYU/BANGAYAN

ISYU/USAPIN NAGDULOT NG PAGKATI-HATI

SINO ANG MGA KALAHOK (INVOLVED)

KAILAN SUMULPOT ANG BANGAYAN

ANO ANG DAHILAN

PORMA NG PAGKILOS IPINAPAKITA ANG PROBLEMA O BANGAYAN

50

5. Matrix #4

6. Matrix #5

7. EXAMPLE LIST OF EVENTS:

GRUPO/SEKTOR/

ANTAS NG KAMULATAN SA BANGAYAN O ISYU

1. Mataas/malalim Katamtaman Mababaw Hindi alam 2.

MGA USAPIN O PROBLEMA HINAHANAPAN NG LUNAS O KASALUKUYANG NIRERESOLBA

PAPAANO ISINAGAWA

DI-NIRERESOLBA

DAHILAN BAKIT HINDI

ITO AY MAAARI NAGSIMULA DAHIL SA MGA SUMUSUNOD: -Pagsampa ng aplikasyon para sa permit o clearances (hal. exploration permit, MPSA, ECC) (Kailan at paano nalaman ng mga stakeholders ang tungkol sa aplikasyon) -habang pinoproseso ang FPIC -habang pinoproseso ang EIA -Sa inilunsad na public hearings at dialogues -sa pinadalang petitions and counter-petitions -Sa pag-adopt ng resolution/posisyon ng Sanggunian (bgy or mun?) -paggawad ng permits/clearances -Sa pagsimula ng exploration/operations ng pagmimina -Naganap na aksidente sa panahon ng exploration/operations -problemang nakita o naranasan ng komunidad -paglunsad ng mobilisasyon -pagsampa ng kaso sa korte o administartibong ahensya -mga inisyatibang panlipunang kaunlaran at community relations (pag-uugnayan) ng mining company

51

8. Matrix #6 (Conflicts)

PINAGTUTUNG- GALIANG ISYU

SINO ANG MGA NAGTUTUNGGALI (___VS.___)

SITWASYON NG TUNGGALIAN MEKANISMO (

mga naresolba

Pamamaraan (paano?)

Hindi-naresolba

dahilan (bakit?)

MAARI ITO AY INTERNAL O EXTERNAL NA MGA SALIK GAYA NG:

• Kakulangan sa kapasidad - teknikal, pinansyal, legal, atbp. • Kakulangan ng tauhan (personnel) • Panlipunan o pampulitikang kalagayan o kaayusan