SAVE RAPU-RAPU. SAVE OUR FUTURE.

OPPOSE THE CONTINUING ONSLAUGHT ON THE EARTH

“I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.” (Jeremiah 2:7)

We, the Ecumenical Bishops Forum (EBF), express alarm over the wanton abuse of natural resources by the Transnational Mining Corporations (TNCs) with their local cohorts in South Luzon Region, especially in Bicol. The experience of the Bicolano people is no different from the plight of local communities in mining areas throughout the country: massive environmental destruction, shrinking economic base of the people, militarization of mining communities, displacement of communities due to land-grabbing and unjust land-conversion, gross human rights violations, destruction of flora and fauna, and further impoverishment of the country. The unresolved and ever continuing polymetallic mining operations in Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay, Labo, Paracale, and Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, the aggressive mine expansion in Aroroy, Masbate by Filminera Resources Corp., the peculiar magnetite off-shore mining in Camarines Sur by Bogo Mining Resources Corp; the Palanog Cement Plant in Albay, Panganiban and San Andres, Catanduanes, and the deeper quagmire of maldevelopment of mining in Matnog, Sorsogon challenge us to rethink our role as responsible God’s stewards of creation ( Genesis 1: 26-31 ).

Destructive mining is blatantly unethical, unjust, and senseless for it exacerbates poverty, causes dislocation of livelihood of the people, and even threatens the base of life and life itself.

It is lamentable that the national government equates TNC mining with development, and is remiss in its duties in protecting the environment to the detriment of the people. It has been proven that the negative costs of mining operations far outweigh the gains.

Thus, to further liberalize the mining industry in favour of the mining corporations as being trumpeted by the Aquino administration will mean more suffering and death, dislocation, displacement and ruin of the environment.

Hence we call on the Filipino people:

1. To oppose all destructive mining operations, both locally or foreign-owned;

2. To scrap the Mining Act of 1995;

3. To demand immediate moratorium of large scale mining

4. To demand the demilitarization of mining communities

5. To fight for justice and integrity of creation;

6. To pass the HB 4315 or the Peoples’ Mining Bill

We urge our churches and faith-based groups and institutions to pursue organizing, awareness building, and other relevant activities, and be in full solidarity with the people’s movement against destructive mining operations.

With the liberating power of the Holy Spirit, we seek strength and wisdom to carry this task of asserting the right of the earth to survive and all that dwell therein.

Ecumenical Bishops Forum

October 6, 2011

DA Reports Rise in Fish Catch But Not in Albay Gulf

In the July 12-18, 2011 issue of Diario Veritas, the Department of Agriculture reported:

Nahilingan nin senyales nin pag-asenso an sector nin pagsisira sa paagi kan pagiging aktibo kan mga regional fishing ports sa primerong quarto kan taon.

Ipinahayag nin Rodolfo Paz, an general manager kan Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA), an mga dakop kan sira an nagtaas nin maabot sa 93 porsyento sa Navotas, Iloilo, asin Sual, Pangasinan.

Siring man an nanotaran sa Davao Fish Port Complex na nagkaigwa man na 40% na pagdakul nin dakop kumparadosa dakop kan mga parasira sa kaparehong peryodo kan nakaaging taon.

Katakod kaini, pinag-engganyar kan DA an gabos na local na gobyerno sa nasyon na pakusugon an industriya nina pagsisira partikular sa aspeto kan environmental protection asin pagbukod sa mga ilegal na mga parasira.

Nakaabot kaya an report sa DA na rampante an paggamit nin mga dinamitakan mga parasira sa nagkakapirang kostal na lugar kan nasyon kun saen saro kan naunambitan digdi iyo an rehiyon Bikol.

At least two points are implied in this report. First, there are rises in fish catch in several areas of the country but not in Albay Gulf. Second, the DA blames all declines in fish catch on environmental degradation “and” illegal fishing.

On the first implication: Why is there no report of any rise in fish catch in Albay Gulf? The answer is obvious: there is in fact a precipitous decline as attested to by fishermen. A 95% decline has been reported here since 2005 the same year when Lafayette went into full operation. Why is there such a decline? We have referred that question to the DA and its line bureau BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) but no answer has ever been given. (They have not even reported any investigation conducted on the cause of death of a 15-meter sperm whale in 2010.)

We have ascribed the decline to mining in Rapu-Rapu from which flow several creeks that are discolored. Officials of Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project reply that fish catch decline is a global phenomenon (technical meeting on April 26, 2011 in EMB). Now, we have here a rebuttal to that defense - the DA report of fish catch rise in at least four areas. Fish catch decline is not a global phenomenon.

On the second implication: Since DA reports rises in fish catch in four areas of the country and calls for curtailment of illegal fishing, then it follows that after curtailing illegal fishing we can observe a rise in fish catch. In Albay Gulf, the Bantay Dagat, a local watch group against illegal fishing, has been very active in this campaign. However, the fish catch decline continues. Couple this observation with the fact that the DA confirms the presence of a fish sanctuary in Gaba Bay, Villahermosa, Rapu-Rapu . With a fish sanctuary and active campaign against illegal fishing, fish population should increase within one or two seasons but this does not happen. Hence, illegal fishing cannot be the cause. Again, we are led to the more obvious – the mining operation in Rapu-Rapu.

It should be pointed out that much of the fish catch in the past according to fishermen consisted of migratory fish from the Pacific Ocean – yellowfin tuna, kwaw, malasugi, tanguigue, sharks, etc. These species do not need the local breeding grounds in Albay Gulf to multiply. They spawn in the areas around Guam and come to Albay Gulf to feed seasonally. They pass through the gap between Rapu-Rapu and Prieto Diaz following the current. Since 2005, the catch of these species has consistently declined. Something is barring their path in that gap and that something is none other than the contamination of silt and heavy metals flowing from the mine site through the creeks and ultimately to the waters around Rapu-Rapu. The current carries the contaminants into the Albay Gulf and spreads them as the tide flows back out into the Philippine Sea.

Any way we look at the phenomenon in Albay Gulf, the glaring fact is that mining has adversely affected our food supply. Between fishing where we derive 100% of the benefits and Rapu-Rapu mining where were derive only 1/3 of 1% (according to the statement of Gov. Joey Salceda in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 28, 2011), we have to choose the former.

The same issue of Diario Veritas banners the headline “City secures fish trade.” It reports the plan of the Legazpi City Council “to beef up the local fishing industry through stern legislation . . . Councilor Carlos Ante had already invited the different leaders of the local fisher folk to lay out details of a proposed ordinance to secure their livelihood.” I laud the efforts of the good councilor. However, I suggest that a more comprehensive view of the problem be taken if it is ever intended to be solved. As management theory suggests, any solution should address the real cause of the problem. Limiting the analysis within the immediate vicinity of the city’s coastal waters will lead to a failure at solution.

Not too long ago, we learned that several city councilors led by then Mayor Noel Rosal visited the Rapu-Rapu mine. In the newsletter of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Foresight, he was quoted as follows: “The mine is full of promise for the province” (Pages 9 and 11). I wrote Hon. Rosal in November 2010 (by then he had become the City Administrator) attaching photographs of the creeks colored brown, red, yellow and orange. I asked if the tour guides brought his group to the creeks. It’s September 2011 and I still have to receive a reply. I also wrote to MGB V and EMB V. Both replied that the contamination in the creeks is within “tolerable levels.”

RRMI, RRPI, LG, Kores and MSC should not think that they have succeeded in convincing the local community in their claim that the mine is operated responsibly and that the benefits they have derived translate to sustainable development of the people. The condition of the creeks, the fish catch decline and the poverty prevailing in the island all speak eloquently of the truth. Environmental damage and economic injustice have worsened. Adding insult to injury, they have praised themselves through press releases about their environmental awards while the residents of Rapu-Rapu and the fishermen of Albay Gulf continue to suffer. The contamination in the creeks may be within “tolerable levels” in the standards of the DENR but the poverty of the island residents, the fish catch decline and the environmental damage are definitely intolerable in the standards of the local community.

The DA, BFAR, DENR, Legazpi City Council, other local government units and other authorities better look into Rapu-Rapu mining honestly if they really want to solve the problem of fish catch decline in Albay Gulf. Anything less than that would not be in keeping with the public trust reposed in them.

September 4, 2011

Mining Engineers’ Conference in Legazpi City blind to local residents’ plight!

On July 13 to 15, 2011 some 300 mining engineers converged in Legazpi City for their Bicol regional conference. This event is unfortunate because it projects the impression that mining engineers are blind to the plight of their fellow Filipinos suffering from the environmental damage and economic injustice wrought by mining companies.

We remind the Provincial Government of Albay about the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution 2011-020 issued on March 8, 2011 banning all future mining activities in the province. It should have shown consistency by expressing disfavor against the convention.

We rebuke the City Government of Legazpi for going against the sentiments of Albayanos against the continued destruction of our environment. The city has recently manifested its inability to walk the talk. In Mount Bariw, Barangay Estanza, a large swath of hillside is severely denuded yet it has done nothing. The silt from the denudation has flowed to Barangay Pinaric where it is several inches thick. In Embarcadero, large volumes of floating garbage greet the citizens whenever they go for a leisurely stroll along the boulevard. The city government has been so preoccupied with pleasing tourists but compromised the welfare of local residents who voted them into office and pay millions in taxes. Tourists bring in income but that income is just a means towards providing better living conditions for local residents. The means cannot be exchanged for the end. If the welfare of citizens is disadvantaged by the city government’s preoccupation with pleasing tourists, then it is time to withdraw the trust reposed in them during election.

The hosting of the mining engineers’ convention in Legazpi is a misstep of the city government. It betrays a failure to understand genuine environmental advocacy. While the city brags about its sanitary landfill, it fails to prove its pro-environment agenda by making a prominent endorsement of mining as a stimulant of progress. While we need products derived from mining, we insist that it should be done in the right place and the right manner. That is what responsible mining is all about. So far, however, all claims of responsible mining by many companies are nothing but hot air because of the evident damage wrought on their surroundings like what is happening in Rapu-Rapu, Aroroy, Palanog, Matnog, Paracale, Catanduanes, Caramoan, etc.

They say, if we do not want mining then we should not use the products of that industry. They are dead wrong. We want mining that does not destroy the environment. We want mining that reserves the natural resources of the Philippines for Filipinos. We want mining that spreads the fruits of development to the masses and not only to the foreign investors and their local junior partners.

We want mining that does not sacrifice our agriculture so that we protect our own food supply. Mining generally provides for non-basic needs while agriculture produces our most basic needs like food, clothing, shelter and livelihood. While mining generates a few temporary jobs, agriculture provides long-term sources of income thus genuinely assuring sustainable development.

We call on all mining engineers to support our notion of genuinely responsible mining. In view of the bad record of mining in Bicol, we ask them not to project the impression that they condone what is happening here contrary to declarations by the DENR, MGB, EMB and companies that all is well in Bicol mining. Bicol is severely suffering from the impacts of mining and the statements of the aforementioned entities are belied when we see the plight of the farmers and fishermen and the condition of our mountains, rivers, creeks and seas.

So in their visit to Rapu-Rapu today, they should make an objective assessment on the effects of mining in the island and its residents and not make it a mere field trip. They should talk to the people to know the real impact of RRPP on their lives. They tell us nothing but misery and deepening poverty. While the project heaps billions upon the foreign investors and their local junior partners, it brings “Lilliputian” benefits to the residents of the island and severe fish catch decline in Albay Gulf on which depend some 14,000 fishermen. Today, there is no more fish to catch in the gulf.

In 2010, the project earned P11.7 billion but according to Gov. Joey Salceda himself the province got a social fund of P41.71 million or a measly one-third (1/3) of 1%! If that is not enough, one can look at the creeks flowing from the mine site to the sea. They are colored yellow, orange, red and brown.

We ask the delegates to the mining conference to wake up to realities and not be deceived by the lies of those who support mining operations in Bicol.

July 19, 2011

RRPP’s Awards - Rubbing Salt on the People’s Injury

The DENR recently awarded the Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project with the Saringaya Award while the Pollution Control Association of the Philippines, Inc gave it the Mother Nature Award. RRPP also boasts of other “awards” for its alleged “safe and responsible mining” in the island. The project’s executives also claim that they have “raised” the living standards of the host communities.

As the cliché goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. One needs only to go to the island and talk to the people to know the real impact of RRPP on their lives. They tell nothing but misery and deepening poverty. While the project heaps billions upon the foreign investors and their local junior partners, it brings “Lilliputian” benefits to the residents of the island and severe fish catch decline in Albay Gulf on which depend some 14,000 fishermen. Today, there is no more fish to catch in the gulf.

In 2010, the project earned P11.7 billion but according to Gov. Joey Salceda himself the province got a social fund of P41.71 million or a measly one-third (1/3) of 1%! If that is not enough, one can look at the creeks flowing from the mine site to the sea. They are colored yellow, orange, red and brown. Challenged to prove his belief in the reports of the Multi-partite Monitoring Team by bathing in the creeks on schedules and sites set by SARA, Director Reynulfo Juan of MGB V, showed photos of people perching on rocks in the discolored creeks on dates and sites they themselves chose. Challenged by SARA to withdraw the armed CAFGUs and allow free access and surprise visits to the creeks, Engr. Rogelio Corpus, President of RRMI, replied that they cannot allow such because they “have to protect their interests.” Hence, the interests of the environment and those of RRPP are contradictory.

The executives of RRPP can go on deluding themselves with fantastic claims of “safe and responsible mining” in Rapu-Rapu but the truth is well-known to the people who suffer much from the environmental damage and economic injustice attendant to the project. The emperor’s new clothes are well-praised by the award-giving bodies. One day, the truth will prevail and the awards will instead shatter their credibility. There is time under heaven for everything, says the Bible. Today, in the island of Rapu-Rapu and villages dependent on Albay Gulf, the people are groaning in pain. The awards are salt rubbed on their wounds while RRPP’s supporters have their photo-ops and raise their toasts of wine in fine dining. We believe that the day will come when, after being denied for so long, the people shall claim justice and RRPP’s awards will go to the dustbin.

July 18, 2011

Noon at Ngayon, Walang Responsableng Dayuhang Pagmimina sa Kabikolan!

Ang nagaganap na 1st Bicol Mining Conference mula Hulyo 13-15, 2011 dito sa Bikol (La Piazza Hotel) sa pangunguna ng MGB-V/DENR-V at ng Phil. Society of Mining Engineers ay isa na namang masamang pangitain para sa mamamayang Bikolano. Pag-uusapan na naman ng ahensya ng MGB-5 at DENR-5 kasama ang mga dayuhang korporasyon sa pagmimina kung paano pa uubusin ang yamang mineral ng Kabikolan, wawasakin ang kabundukan, karagatan at kalupaan ng Bikol.

Kahiya-hiya at malakas pa ang loob na ang itinakdang tema ng kumperensyang magaganap ay: Towards Responsible Mining: “Against All Odds”. Responsable para kanino? - Para sa mga malalaki at dayuhang korporasyon sa pagmimina kasama ng mga malalaking lokal na negosyante at para sa mga matataas na opisyales ng gobyerno at ahensya na nakikipagsabwatan sa mga korporasyong ito.

Kalokohang sabihin na ang operasyon na Open Pit Mining sa Rapu-Rapu, Albay (Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project ng Lafayette/LG-Kollins) at sa Aroroy, Masbate (Masbate Gold Project ng Filminera Resources Corporation) ay responsable! Mayroon bang pagpapasabog (blasting) ng kabundukan at kalupaan na “safe and environmental friendly”? Samantalang winawasak nga at hinuhukay pailalim.

Hindi rin responsable ang Magnetite Offshore Mining ng Bogo Mining Resources Corp. sa limang bayan ng Calabanga, Sipocot, Tinambac, Cabusao at Siruma sa Camarines Sur kung saan hahalukayin ang kailaliman ng karagatan 15 kilometro mula sa baybayin nito.

Hindi kailanman naging responsable ang mga dayuhang korporasyon ng pagmimina sa mga naapektuhan ng kanilang mga operasyon. Simula ng operasyon ng RRPP sa Rapu-Rapu ay lalong lumala ang kahirapan at nagkagutom-gutom ang mga residente dito dahil sa pagbagsak ng kanilang kabuhayan sa pangingisda at pagsasaka dulot ng mga lason ng pagmimina dito. Kung mayroong nakinabang sa binayad ng RRPP na P10,862.85 (mine waste fee) para sa 217,257 tonelada na “mine waste” ay ang MGB-V. (mula sa ulat ng MGB-V,2010). Sampung libong piso! Katumbas ba ito ng isang buhay ng nanay na namatay dahil nakakain ng isda dahil sa fishkill doon o ng isang batang namatay doon dahil sa kagutuman?

Apektado na nga ang mga residente sa pagmimina sa Barangay Nakalaya, Jose Panganiban sa Camarines Norte ay naiipit pa sila ngayon sa kaguluhan at away ng Investwell Corporation at ng FMCGI ng pamilyang Fonacier na nag-aagawan ng yamang mineral ng kanilang lugar.

Kasinungalingang ipamaglaki pa sa ulat ng DENR-V/MGB-V na ang malakihang pagmimina sa Kabikolan ang nagpasigla ng ekonomiya ng rehiyon samantalang ayon sa ulat ay nasa ikalawa sa pinakamahirap na rehiyon ang Bikol sa buong bansa. Kung sinasabi na umunlad ang ekonomiya ng Bikol dahil sa malakihang pagmimina – hindi ito maramdaman ng mga mamamayang Bikolano lalo na ng mga apektado ng mapaminsala at dayuhang pagmimina.

Tanging ang mga malalaki at dayuhang korporasyon sa pagmimina kasama ng mga malalaking lokal na negosyante at mga matataas na opisyales ng gobyerno at ahensya na nakikipagsabwatan sa mga korporasyong ito ang nakikinabang sa mga produkto at kita ng pagmimina dito sa Bikol. Sa ulat ng MBG-V/DENR-V noong 2010, sa kabuuan ay may P4,654,818,424.31 at P57,483,032.45 na kita mula sa “metallic ” at “non-metallic production”dito sa Bikol ayon sa pagkasunod-sunod ngunit hindi naman inulat ang mga dambuhala at limpak na limpak na kita ng mga korporasyon na maluwag na inilalabas patungo sa kanilang bansa. Maluwag nang nailalabas ang kita, maluwag pa ang kanilang operasyon dahil sa mga iba’t-ibang insentibo tulad ng: 6 years income tax exemption, 10 years export tax exemption, and import tax exemption at marami pang iba.

Kaya nga parang parang kabuteng nagsulputan ang mga ito sa Bikol dahil sa pagiging sagana ng rehiyon sa yamang mineral at prayoridad pa ng nakaraang gobyerno ni GMA ito para sa malakihang proyektong pagmimina na ipinagpapatuloy lamang ng gobyerno ni Noynoy Aquino at pinasahol pa sa ilalim ng kanyang Public-Private Partnership Program. Gayundin, patuloy ang pag-iral ng Mining Act of 1995 kung saan ay lalong nagbuyangyang sa ating likas na yaman para dambungin at wasakin ang ating kalikasan.

“Towards Responsible Mining: Against All Odds” ? - Ang responsableng pagmimina ay mangyayari lamang sa ating bansa kung magkakaroon ng re-oryentasyon ang industriya ng pagmimina sa ating bansa. Kung saan, ang kita ng industriya ng pagmimina ay napapakinabangan at napapaunlad ang mamamayang Pilipino at hindi napupunta sa dayuhan at sa mga lokal na kasabwat nito. Kung saan, ang gobyerno ang may kontrol ng industriya at hindi ang mga dayuhan.

Hindi dayuhang pagmimina at malawakang kumbersyon ng lupa ang magpapaunlad sa Kabikolan. Hindi ito ang sagot sa kahirapan at kagutuman ng mamamayang Bikolano. Pagpapaunlad ng agrikultura, trabaho at sapat na sahod, tirahan, libreng serbisyo-sosyal ang tutugon sa kahirapan at kagutuman upang mabuhay ng maayos at marangal ang mamamayang Bikolano. Tunay na Reporma sa Lupa at Pambansang Industriyalisasyon lamang ang magpapaunlad sa bansa at rehiyon.

UMALPAS-KA

Hulyo 13, 2011

A Word of Caution

There is another blogsite posing as SAVE RAPU-RAPU with address http://saverapu-rapu.blogspot.com. (Note the DASH.) That site is a deception. Even our design is imitated. The obvious motive is to confuse our readers. Our address has NO DASH between the words "rapu" and "rapu." Our site was first posted on December 3, 2007; theirs, on April 14, 2008. Hence, we are first in going online with this URL and design. We learned about the other site only recently. The apologists of the mining operation in the island can go to this and other lengths just to sow confusion. Deceptive tactics are a disservice to readers and only reveal the desperation of the pro-Rapu-Rapu mining group. Our readers are, therefore, warned.

Matthew 7:16 - You will know them by what they do. Thorn bushes do not bear grapes, and briers do not bear figs.

Matthew 7:20 - So then, you will know the false prophets by what they do.

The creeks are crucial to the condition of fishing grounds

around Rapu-Rapu. They connect the mine site to Albay Gulf. The current severe decline in fish catch in the gulf is blamed on the mining operation in Rapu-Rapu. The decline started in 2005 as reported by fishermen; that's the same year when Lafayette began full operation. That is also the same year when the first two major fishkills started (October 11 and 31). The toxic spills came from the mine site and reached the surrounding body of water via the creeks. The contamination in those creeks will always damage the corral reefs in Albay Gulf. The effluent coming out of the mouths of the creeks prevents the entry of migratory fish from the Pacific Ocean into the gulf.

The joke is that there will no longer be any fishkill - because there are no more fish to kill.

The fish that allegedly died off the coasts of Linao and Binosawan during the fishkill reported by island residents and the parish on May 8, 2011 could be the migratory species from the Pacific Ocean attempting to enter Albay Gulf via the gap between Rapu-Rapu and Prieto Diaz. Linao is a village facing the ocean and Binosawan, the gap.

The MGB V Photographs and "Bathing" in the Creeks of Rapu-Rapu

MGB V Director Reynulfo A. Juan wrote to SARA Spokesperson Virgilio S. Perdigon, Jr. on April 15, 2011:

"With reference to your challenge to take a bath in the creeks, we have done just that. some members of the MMT and personnel of Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project (RRPP) went to a picnic and took a bath at Pagcolbon Creek on March 29 and April 3, 2011. We are attaching pictures for your reference. These pictures indicate the current status of the creeks."

In reply, Mr. Perdigon writes:

The good Director says he believes the contamination data but he is not among those “bathing.” Someone is shown sitting on the rocks (obviously not bathing) but the face is not recognizable (number 10).

While this Mayon creek is almost crystal clear, yellowish coloration is evident in the creeks emanating from the mine site in Rapu-Rapu photographed by MGB V. The MMT report is silent about results of sampling for heavy metals and freshwater organisms. Allowing us free access and surprise visits would have revealed if there are even snails in the creeks. The armed guards under the Special CAFGU Active Auxiliary (SCAA) base are very strong evidence that something is being hidden in the Rapu-Rapu creeks.

Then and Now: What Difference? What Improvement in the Creeks?

According to RRPP, the coloration of the creeks has improved. However, during the Technical Conference with the Environment Management Bureau Region V and Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance on April 26, Engr. Rogelio Corpus, President of RRMI, said that the difference between the pictures then and now is not significant. He requested the Presiding Officer, Engr. Henry Lopez of EMB V, for permission to present RRPP pictures taken on April 25. The RRPP pictures, however, cannot be verified independently because the mining companies do not want "free access and surprise visits" to the creeks. They do not want to withdraw the armed guards "to protect their interests." As an environmentalist organization, SARA wants to protect the environment. It follows that the interests of RRPP are contrary to those of the environment.

Below, we are presenting ALL pictures in the Annex to the EMB V Investigation Report dated March 8-10, 2011. Those on the left are the pictures we have been showing to authorities which were taken from 2006 to 2009; those on the right are alleged to have been taken in the same spots on March 8 to 10, 2011 by EMB V and the mining companies. You be the judge if there is any improvement.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Bad News for the Environment?

Mining bureaucrat is new DENR secretary
www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/

MANILA, Philippines - President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has named long-time Mines and Geosciences Director (MGB) Horacio Ramos as secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita announced the changes on Wednesday in a media briefing held in Malolos, Bulacan.

The erstwhile DENR secretary, Eleazar Quinto, has been appointed director-general of the Presidential Coalition Affairs Office.

Quinto replaced Maricar Imperial, who was appointed Cabinet secretary replacing Silvestre Bello III.

Bello resigned to run for senator under the administration party Lakas-Kampi-CMD.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Fish Catch Decline Continues to be Confirmed

Yesterday, February 3, 2010 we were told by a fisherman from Santo Domingo, Albay (45-50 km northwest of Rapu-Rapu) that they set out to fish in Albay Gulf the day before. They caught nothing but 1 bañera of "bolinaw" (a species of fish popular among us for its small size and transparent flesh). It's among the poor man's food. Before 2005, they used to catch 20 bañeras of the species.

Reports like this are confirmatory of the complaint of fishermen from other areas around Albay Gulf. In Malobago, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, the Ibon Foundation research team gathered that fishermen there were experiencing a 93% decline in catch. In 2008, fishermen in San Carlos, Tabaco, Albay and Bigaa, Legazpi City reported that their fish catch declined from 50 to 3 bañeras per outing. This is a 94% decline. The report by the fisherman from Santo Domingo means a decline of 95%.

If we list down the figures, we have:

2007 - 93% decline
2008 - 94%
2010 - 95%

There is a trend here. As time passes, the decline is worsening. All these started in 2005 when the mining operation in Rapu-Rapu, Albay went full blast. The apologists of Lafayette may again defend by saying that the reports are not "scientific". We insist that the Ibon report was scientific. The complaints of fishermen received in 2008 and 2010 are merely confirmatory.

Moreover, between a scientist's study and a fisherman's actual experience, any sensible evaluator of the information coming from areas around Albay Gulf should lend serious consideration to the latter.

The declining fish catch is a major impact of Lafayette mining which no ISO certification can nullify. This is truth in its barest essence that would only disprove claims of responsible mining by Lafayette and put under a dark cloud of doubt the integrity of any standards organization. As we have reminded them, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Text Messages from the Island

I received the following messages today, January 26, 2010 from someone attending the committee hearing of the Rapu-Rapu Municipal Council:

Today January 26, 2010 at 11 am concerned people of Poblacion and Morocborocan will be having a prayer rally/procession around Poblacion particularly in front of the Municipal Hall asking for the help of Our Lord not to let the mining (companies) operate in our (villages). Please help us pray.
09:20:15

I am here with Fr. Jay and people from the Social Action Center. Boring moment because the mining companies’ personnel are presenting . . . They are saying just one thing: they will mine the area. They say they will not mine yet but will only explore.
11:16:13

Somebody asked about the massive fishkill in November 2006 (sic). How would the companies explain it? The Mines and Geosciences Bureau responded in behalf of the miners.
12:10:18

The session is over. According to Councilor Galicia (Committee on Environment) and Councilor Baranda (Committee on Laws) they will follow the people’s will. They saw and know the previous impacts of mining. It’s election time. We hope they don’t sing a different tune afterwards. The people have only one clamor: no more exploration; no to mining!
12:47:00

Monday, January 25, 2010

BOYCOTT LG PRODUCTS !!!

Because LG International Corporation owns 42% of the Rapu-Rapu mine (28% by Korea Resources Corporation and 30% by Malaysia Smelting Corporation) . . .

Because LG, Kores and MSC own Lafayette Philippines, Inc. which in turn owns Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. (RRMI) and Rapu-Rapu Processing, Inc. (RRPI), the local operators of the Rapu-Rapu mine . . .

Because the Rapu-Rapu mine continues to destroy the surrounding areas of Rapu-Rapu and Albay Gulf . . .

Because the Rapu-Rapu mine has caused the growing poverty among 14,000 fishermen dependent on Albay Gulf and 9,000 residents of the island while only a very small minority (918 as claimed) benefit from jobs it purportedly generates . . .

Because LG sells products in our locality . . .

We call for a boycott of all products with the LG mark – cellphone, washing machine, computer monitor, aircon, refrigerator, etc.!

Find ways to make Korea Resources Corporation and Malaysia Smelting Corporation accountable too!

Fight for our right over our natural resources against the greed of foreign big business and those in positions of political power who are their local junior partners!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

MGB V Endorses RRMI Application to Explore Poblacion and Morocborocan

In an endorsement dated September 22, 2009 which was acknowledged as received by the Rapu-Rapu municipal government on January 5, 2010, MGB V Regional Director Reynulfo A. Juan informed the LGU that RRMI may publicize its application to explore Poblacion and Morocborocan. Thirty (30) days are allotted to any interested party to raise its objection to the application. If there is no objection, RRMI can proceed to explore the areas.

The following excerpts from the Philippine Mining Act, DAO 1996-40 and DAO 2007-15 pertinent to the application for exploration permit serve to enlighten us on the prospects:

Philippine Mining Act of 1995

Section 20 Exploration Permit. - An exploration permit grants the right to conduct exploration for all minerals in specified areas. The Bureau shall have the authority to grant an exploration Permit to a qualified person.

Section 21 Terms and Conditions of the Exploration Permit. - An exploration permit shall be for a period of two (2) years, subject to annual review and relinquishment or renewal upon the recommendation of the Director.

Section 22 Maximum Areas for Exploration Permit. - The maximum area that a qualified person may hold at any one time shall be:

a. Onshore, in any one province
1. for individuals, twenty (20) blocks: and
2. for partnerships, corporations, cooperatives, or associations, two hundred (200) blocks.

b. Onshore, in the entire Philippines
1. for individuals, forty (40) blocks; and
2. for partnerships, corporations, cooperatives, or associations, four hundred (400) blocks.

c. Offshore, beyond five hundred meters (500m) from the mean low tide level:
1. for individuals, one hundred (100) blocks; and
2. for partnerships, corporations, cooperatives, or associations, one thousand (1,000) blocks.

Section 23 Rights and Obligations of the Permittee. - An exploration permit shall grant to the permittee, his heirs or successors-in-interest, the right to enter, occupy and explore the area: Provided, That if private or other parties are affected, the permittee shall first discuss with the said parties the extent, necessity, and manner of his entry, occupation and exploration and in case of disagreement, a panel of arbitrators shall resolve the conflict or disagreement.

The permittee shall undertake an exploration work on the area as specified by its permit based on an approved work program.

Any expenditure in excess of the yearly budget of the approved work program may be carried forward and credited to the succeeding years covering the duration of the permit. The Secretary, through the Director, shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the terms and conditions of the permit.

The permittee may apply for a mineral production sharing agreement, joint venture agreement, co-production agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement over the permit area, which application shall be granted if the permittee meets the necessary qualifications and the terms and conditions of any such agreement: Provided, That the exploration period covered by the exploration permit shall be included as part of the exploration period of the mineral agreement or financial or technical assistance agreement.

Section 24 Declaration of Mining Project Feasibility. - A holder of an exploration permit who determines the commercial viability of a project covering a mining area may, within the term of the permit, file with the Bureau a declaration of mining project feasibility accompanied by a work program for development. The approval of the mining project feasibility and compliance with other requirements provided in this Act shall entitle the holder to an exclusive right to a mineral production sharing agreement or other mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreement.

Section 25 Transfer or Assignment. - An exploration permit may be transferred or assigned to a qualified person subject to the approval of the Secretary upon the recommendation of the Director.

DENR Department Administrative Order 1996-40

Section 15 Areas Closed to Mining Applications. - Pursuant to the Act and in consonance with State policies and existing laws, areas may be either closed to mining applications or conditionally opened therefor.

a. The following areas are closed to mining applications:

1. Areas covered by valid and existing mining rights and mining applications subject to Subsection b(3) herein;

2. Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks, provincial/municipal forests, tree parks, greenbelts, game refuge, bird sanctuaries and areas proclaimed as marine reserves/marine parks and tourist zones as defined by law and identified initial components of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) pursuant to R.A. No. 7586 and such areas expressly prohibited thereunder, as well as under Department Administrative Order No. 25, Series of 1992, and other laws;

3. Areas which the Secretary may exclude based, inter alia, on proper assessment of their environmental impacts and implications on sustainable land uses, such as built-up areas and critical watersheds with appropriate barangay/municipal/city/provincial Sanggunian ordinance specifying therein the location and specific boundary of the concerned area; and

4. Areas expressly prohibited by law.

Mining applications which have been made over the foregoing areas shall be reviewed and, after due process, such areas may be excluded from said applications.

b. The following areas may be opened for mining applications the approval of which are subject to the following conditions:

1. Military and other Government Reservations, upon prior written clearance by the Government agency having jurisdiction over such Reservations;

2. Areas near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archaeological and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure projects, public or private works, including plantations or valuable crops, upon written consent of the concerned Government agency or private entity subject to technical evaluation and validation by the Bureau;

3. Areas covered by FTAA applications which shall be opened for quarry resources mining applications pursuant to Section 53 hereof upon the written consent of the FTAA applicants, except for sand and gravel applications which shall require no such consent;

4. Areas covered by small-scale mining under R.A. No. 7076/P.D. No. 1899 upon prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty payment, upon the utilization of minerals, shall be agreed upon by the concerned parties and shall form a Trust Fund for the socioeconomic development of the concerned community; and

5. DENR Project Areas upon prior consent from the concerned agency.

The Bureau shall cause the periodic review of areas closed to mining applications for the purpose of determining whether or not their continued closure is consistent with the national interest and render its recommendations, if any, to the Secretary for appropriate action.

Section 21 Publication/Posting/Radio Announcement of an Exploration Permit Application. - Within fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the necessary area clearances, the Bureau/concerned Regional Office(s) shall issue to the applicant the Notice of Application for Exploration Permit for publication, posting and radio announcement which shall be done within fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the Notice. The Notice must contain, among others, the name and complete address of the applicant, duration of the permit applied for, extent of exploration activities to be undertaken, area location, geographical coordinates/meridional block(s) of the proposed permit area and location map/sketch plan with index map relative to major environmental features and projects and to the nearest municipalities.

The Bureau/concerned Regional Office(s) shall cause the publication of the Notice once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in two (2) newspapers: one of general circulation published in Metro Manila and another published in the municipality or province where the proposed permit area is located, if there be such newspapers; otherwise, in the newspaper published in the nearest municipality or province.

The Bureau/concerned Regional Office shall also cause the posting for two (2) consecutive weeks of the Notice on the bulletin boards of the Bureau, the concerned Regional Office(s), Provincial Environmental and Natural Resources Office(s) (PENRO(s)), Community Environmental and Natural Resources Office(s) (CENRO(s)) and in the concerned province(s) and municipality(ies), copy furnished the barangay(s) where the proposed permit area is located. Where necessary, the Notice shall be in a language generally understood in the concerned locality where it is posted.

The radio announcements shall be made daily for two (2) consecutive weeks in a local radio program and shall consist of the name and complete address of the applicant, area location, duration of the permit applied for and instructions that information regarding such application may be obtained at the Bureau/concerned Regional Office(s). The publication and radio announcements shall be at the expense of the applicant.

Within thirty (30) calendar days from the last date of publication/posting/radio announcements, the authorized officer(s) of the concerned office(s) shall issue a certification(s) that the publication/posting/radio announcement have been complied with. Any adverse claim, protest or opposition shall be filed directly, within thirty (30) calendar days from the last date of publication/posting/radio announcement, with the concerned Regional Office or through any concerned PENRO or CENRO for filing in the concerned Regional Office for purposes of its resolution by the Panel of Arbitrators pursuant to the provisions of the Act and these implementing rules and regulations. Upon final resolution of any adverse claim, protest or opposition, the Panel of Arbitrators shall issue a Certification to that effect within five (5) working days from the date of finality of resolution thereof. Where no adverse claim, protest or opposition is filed after the lapse of the period for filing the adverse claim, protest or opposition, the Panel of Arbitrators shall likewise issue a Certification to that effect within five (5) working days therefrom.

However, previously published valid and existing mining claims are exempted from the publication/posting/radio announcement required under this Section.

No Exploration Permit shall be approved unless the requirements under this Section are fully complied with and any adverse claim/protest/opposition thereto is finally resolved.

Section 203 Filing of Adverse Claims/Conflicts/Oppositions. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 21, 38 and 55 hereof, any adverse claims, protest or opposition specified in said Sections may also be filed directly with the Panel of Arbitrators within the prescribed periods for filing such claim, protest or opposition as specified in said Sections.

Section 204 Substantial Requirements for Adverse Claims, Protests and Oppositions. - No adverse claim, protest or opposition involving mining rights shall be accepted for filing unless verified and accompanied by the prescribed docket fee and proof of services to the respondent(s), either personally or by registered mail: Provided, That the requirement for the payment of docket fees shall not be imposed on pauper litigants.

Likewise, no adverse claims, protest or opposition shall be entertained unless it contains the names and addresses of the adverse party, protestant, oppositor and the respondent and their respective counsels, if any; a detailed statement of the facts relied upon; the grounds for adverse claim, protest or opposition; and an exhaustive discussion of the issues and arguments raised; together with all supporting plans, documents, data and other documentary evidences and affidavits of all witnesses.

Section 205 Period to Decide the Case. - The Panel shall render its decision within thirty (30) days, after the submission of the case by the parties for decision.

Section 206 Execution and Finality of Decision. - The decision of the Panel of Arbitrators shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of decision by the aggrieved party, unless the latter appeals to the Mines Adjudication Board within the same period. Where an appeal is filed, the concerned Panel of Arbitrators shall transmit the notice thereof together with the records of the case within five (5) days to the Mines Adjudication Board.

Upon the finality of the decision of the Panel of Arbitrators, no appeal having taken therefrom, the Chairman of the Panel of Arbitrators shall issue a writ of execution directing the Sheriff of the Regional Trial Courts, with jurisdiction over the area, to implement and execute the writ.

DENR Department Administrative Order 2007-15

Section 3. Section 21. (PublicationlPostinglRadio Announcement of an Exploration Permit Application) is hereby amended, to read as follows:

"Section 21. PublicationlPostinglRadio Announcement of an Exploration Permit Application

Within five (5) working days from receipt of the necessary area clearances, the Regional Office(s) concerned shall issue the Notice of Application for Exploration Permit to the applicant for publication and radio announcement, and to the Offices concerned for posting. The Notice must contain, among others, the name and complete address of the applicant, duration of the permit applied for, extent of exploration activities to be undertaken, area location, geographical coordinateslmeridional block(s) of the proposed permit area and location maplsketch plan with index map relative to major environmental features and projects and to the nearest municipalities.

Within five (5) working days from receipt of the Notice, the Exploration Permit applicant shall cause the publication thereof once in two (2) newspapers: one of general circulation published in Metro Manila and another published in the municipality or province where the proposed permit area is located, if there be such newspapers; otherwise, in the newspaper published in the nearest municipality or province. The pertinent affidavits of publication shall be submitted by the Exploration Permit applicant to the Regional Office concerned within five (5) days from the date of publication of the Notice.

The Regional Office concerned shall cause the posting of the Notice on its bulletin board, and those of the province(s) and municipality(ies) concerned, or city(ies) concerned, for one (1) week, copy furnished the Bureau and the barangay(s) where the- proposed permit area is located. Where necessary, the Notice shall be in a language generally understood in the concerned locality where it is posted.

The radio announcements shall be made daily for one (1) week in a local radio program and shall consist of the name and complete address of the applicant, area location, duration of the permit applied for and instructions that information regarding such application may be obtained at the Regional Office(s) concerned. The publication and radio announcements shall be at the expense of the applicant.

Within five (5) working days from the last date of posting and radio announcement(s), the authorized officer(s) of the concerned office(s) shall issue a certification(s) that the posting/radio announcement have been complied with. Any adverse claim, protest or opposition shall be filed directly, within ten (10) working days from the date of publication or from the last date of posting/radio announcement, with the Regional Office concerned or through any PENRO or CENRO concerned for filing in the Regional Office concerned for purposes of its resolution by the Panel of Arbitrators pursuant to the provisions of the Act and these implementing rules and regulations. Upon final resolution of any adverse claim, protest or opposition, the Panel of Arbitrators shall issue a Certification to that effect within five (5) working days from the date of finality of resolution thereof. Where no adverse claim, protest or opposition is filed after the lapse of the period for filing the adverse claim, protest or opposition, the Panel of Arbitrators shall likewise issue a Certification to that effect within five (5) working days from receipt of the request of any concerned party.

XXX

No exploration permit shall be approved unless the requirements under this Section are fully complied with and any adverse claim/protest/opposition thereto is resolved with finality.

What is in store for the people of Rapu-Rapu and the entire province of Albay? If the mining operation in the southern villages is any indication, then we can only expect more heavy metal pollution and more economic injustice from the expansion of Lafayette mining. If the 180-hectare quarrying and processing activities resulted in fishkills, fish catch decline from 50 to 3 bañeras, severe contamination of the creeks, and poverty among the island residents, then what awaits us with the additional 608-hectare operation?

Lafayette might respond again by saying that the exploration does not necessarily mean full operation. Only when they find minerals will that happen. In reply, we say that this is like claiming that a father should not worry that his daughter was kidnapped because if the kidnappers find out that she is not good-looking, then they would not rape her!

Rapu-Rapu and the surrounding areas are reeling from the environmental damage and economic injustice brought about by Lafayette mining. The company wants to thrust its knife deeper into the bossom of our patrimony and the government is not coming to our aid; it is even cheering Lafayette in its rapacious onslaught on the island. The MGB V endorsement is nothing less than that.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Metals production surged to P107B in ’09 but what do Rapu-Rapu residents get?

According to a Philippine Daily Inquirer business section article on December 30, 2009, “Metals production in the Philippines surged in 2009 as increase in metal prices coincided with expanded production of certain projects, according to officials at the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB).”

Moreover, “MGB director Horacio Ramos said in an interview that metal production was valued at P107 billion, ‘which was 39 percent higher than last year,’ he said.”

“ ‘Among those who (sic) pushed production were Filminera and CGA Mining for the Masbate gold project, Atlas’ Carmen Copper Corp. in Cebu, Philsaga in Agusan, line 2 of Sumitomo’s Coral Bay project, Rapu-Rapu, and TVI’s copper production,’ Ramos said” (boldfacing supplied).

We ask: How much of that P107 billion went to people directly affected by mining operations? Particularly, how much did the people of Rapu-Rapu and surrounding areas suffering from severe fish catch decline get? Have the creeks of Rapu-Rapu become clean? Are the people of Rapu-Rapu and surrounding areas more prosperous because of higher metal production from the island?

The mining operation in Rapu-Rapu, as in other areas, was endorsed and approved by the government and some vested interests with the prospect that it would bring development. Peter Wallace, an Australian mining advocate, once asked in his column, “Where’s the pot of gold?” Good for him because now he can have his answer. We, in turn, ask: But where is the development?

Rapu-Rapu is one evidence of the grossly mistaken economic policies opening our country to mining companies with lip-service attention to environmental protection, attracting foreign investors instead of nurturing local entrepreneurs, favoring the production of goods which are not the basic needs of our people but are the luxuries of aliens, and promoting junior partnerships between politically powerful Filipinos and foreign big business interests at the expense of millions of poor and marginalized sectors.

Indeed, metal production rose by 39%, but what’s in it for the masses? For a tiny minority, maybe there are some windfall benefits. For the vast majority, however, there is nothing but more poverty.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

The Real Disaster in Albay

The recent eruption of Mayon may be a disaster. It can be argued, however, that such event was not that disastrous, as the eruption ended soon. Mayon's eruption caused inconvenience for two weeks (and, yes, crop damage in some westside villages; four died in evacuation centers due to stress and poor sanitation and they could not have been worse had they remained in ther homes). The disaster in Rapu-Rapu and surrounding sea, however, is on its 5th year. Daily some 10,000 island residents are bearing the full brunt of the environmental damage and economic injustice. Some 14,000 fishermen around Albay Gulf have seen their fish catch decline by as much as 93% - all that since 2005 and it's ongoing.

Three important sets of evidences and testimonies validate this disaster:

1. The pictures of contaminated creeks – brown, yellow, orange and red in color – as shown in the side bar of this webpage - are evidences of this disaster. Lafayette has not shown its own shots of the creeks to prove the effectiveness of its mitigation measures. All that the company shows are drawings of their devices and photographs of structures inside the minesite in early phases of construction and which evidently were cleaned up before the pictures were taken.

2. The interviews with island residents complaining about the ongoing hunger and poverty in the island despite the huge income of LPI as reported in the press releases of MGB.

3. The decline in fish catch by as much as 93% since 2005, the same year when LPI started full operation.

Lafayette may contrive every means they can think of – from revising their website content, to producing Powerpoint presentations, to claiming ISO certification – but all those will never counteract the three evidences and testimonies listed above. Lafayette executives have ignored our challenge for them to bathe in the creeks if they want to prove that they are not polluting the water channels. Instead, Ms. Calleja cavalierly responds: Visit the minesite and see for yourself. In response, we have told her: we have been there and done that! What matters now is the proof of the pudding which is in the eating. Whatever assurances they may state about the excellent control measures they have devised, the polluted creeks, hunger and poverty, and severe fish catch decline which commenced in 2005 will refute their claims.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Be Responsible Creation Stewards - Message from Pope Benedict XVI

Among the scores of emails I receive daily, one remained unopened until I did some cleanup today. One message caught my eye. Upon perusal, I concluded that this message could be the response of the Pope to the letter sent by Bicol bishops in December 2008 and to all other cries for help from people afflicted with the scorge of environmental degradation perpetrated by those who pay lip service to responsible mining, sustainable development and best practices yet, in reality, destroy the very communities that have provided them wealth, the very communities they have provided with token if not sham social development projects. The reference to "the scandal of hunger and human misery" in paragraph 4 is a bull's eye hit on the mining operations in Rapuy-Rapu Island.

BENEDICT XVI

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday, 26 August 2009

I offer a warm welcome to all the English-speaking visitors present at today’s Audience, including the many altar servers, school pupils and choristers.

The summer holidays have given us all the opportunity to thank God for the precious gift of creation. Taking up this theme, I wish to reflect today upon the relationship between the Creator and ourselves as guardians of his creation. In so doing I also wish to offer my support to leaders of governments and international agencies who soon will meet at the United Nations to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.

The Earth is indeed a precious gift of the Creator who, in designing its intrinsic order, has given us guidelines that assist us as stewards of his creation. Precisely from within this framework, the Church considers that matters concerning the environment and its protection are intimately linked with integral human development.... In my recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, I referred to such questions recalling the “pressing moral need for renewed solidarity” (no. 49) not only between countries but also between individuals, since the natural environment is given by God to everyone, and so our use of it entails a personal responsibility towards humanity as a whole, particularly towards the poor and towards future generations (cf. no. 48).

How important it is then, that the international community and individual governments send the right signals to their citizens and succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment! The economic and social costs of using up shared resources must be recognized with transparency and borne by those who incur them, and not by other peoples or future generations. The protection of the environment, and the safeguarding of resources and of the climate, oblige all leaders to act jointly, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the world (cf. no. 50). Together we can build an integral human development beneficial for all peoples, present and future, a development inspired by the values of charity in truth. For this to happen it is essential that the current model of global development be transformed through a greater, and shared, acceptance of responsibility for creation: this is demanded not only by environmental factors, but also by the scandal of hunger and human misery (boldfacing supplied).

With these sentiments I wish to encourage all the participants in the United Nations summit to enter into their discussions constructively and with generous courage. Indeed, we are all called to exercise responsible stewardship of creation, to use resources in such a way that every individual and community can live with dignity, and to develop “that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God” (Message for the 2008 World Day of Peace, 7)!

Thank you.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090826_en.html

Friday, November 6, 2009

Unrepentant Lafayette

“We are no longer called ‘Lafayette.’ We are now ‘Korea Malaysia Philippines Resources Corporation.” Mrs. Cecille A. Calleja, Vice-President for Public Relations of Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc., insisted on November 3, 2009 during the hearing of the Committee on Environment of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay. The hearing was the second called by committee chair Kinatawan Julio Tingzon. It focused on environmental impacts of the mining operations. The first was on October 20 which tackled tax payments and the Social Development Management Program.

The change of name, however, is superficial. There is official paper trail on the continuity of the juridical personality of Lafayette. The change of name is not occasioned by any change of heart of the very same persons still working for the companies.

The second hearing

Present during the second hearing were Lafayette officials and staff: Engr. Rogelio E. Corpus, Mrs. Cecille A. Calleja, Engr. Carmelita Borbe Pacis. From the DENR attendees included Dr. Eva Ocfemia of EMB, Engr. Buenaventura S. Dayao and Engr. Guillermo Molina of MGB, and Engr. Rodolfo Matusalem of PENRO. Kinatawans Julio Tingzon, Osty Calleja and Neil Montallana were present. I represented Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance as its Spokesperson and Aquinas University of Legazpi as its Secretary-General. On query of Kinatawan Montallana, I said that I was also there as a taxpayer.

Engr. Corpus introduced Engr. Pacis who presented “what happened in the past which everybody knows and therefore needs no further elaboration,” Lafayette’s AMD management and dam design. The latter also insisted that what happened in 2005 were not fishkills “as in tons and tons of dead fish; only two kilos of small fish died.”

No admission of guilt; no repentance

Engr. Pacis vehemently denied the fishkills, official documents submitted to the national environment agency notwithstanding. Those documents subpoenaed by the Rapu-Rapu fact-Finding Commission state that Lafayette privately admitted guilt for the October 2005 spills. In public pronouncements, the same personnel deny Lafayette responsibility. They do not call it a fishkill on account of only “2 kilos” of dead fish recovered. Mrs. Nida Bendal attests that she herself collected two sacks of dead fish along the shores of Binosawan. That does not include the dead fish that could not be collected far out into the sea and those that have sunk to the sea floor. The fishkill of 2006 is also denied by Lafayette in spite of the narrative on Pages 15 and 16 of the TWG report on the test runs of 2006 titled “Evaluation of the Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project Under the Test Run Conditions.” They also deny the fishkills in October 2007 despite overwhelming documentation and testimonies of the residents of Rapu-Rapu.

This is the root of Lafayette’s failure to gain social acceptability. It cannot face its own ghosts. It would rather have a change of mask than a change of heart.

Impossibility of managing AMD in a small island

The first reason for objection to Lafayette mining in Rapu-Rapu is the presence of sulfide and pyrite rocks which are sources of acid mine drainage. Lafayette is adamant in refusing to admit that AMD cannot be managed in the small island of Rapu-Rapu. What Engr. Pacis admitted is that they cannot give 100% guarantee. “But there are other controls,” she quickly added. If those controls are effective the creeks would show.

On October 20, I showed them the photographs of the creeks from the ponds and gabions to the beach all tarnished with yellow, red and orange colors. They have no reply to that evidence. Lafayette failed to present their photographs of the creeks emanating from the mine site and flowing to the sea, some 400 to 500 meters from the tailings pond.

To oppositors, the short distance of the tailings pond from the sea is a consequence of second reason for objection to mining operations: the island’s small size. To Engr. Pacis, the 400 to 500-meter distance is safe enough. She forgets the third reason for objecting to the mining operations: the steep slopes. With short distance and flat terrain, there might be hope of retarding the flow of poisoned water to the sea. However, with short distance and steep slopes, the AMD easily reaches the fishing grounds of the poor fishermen.

All they showed were dam design drawings and photographs of canals around the ponds in the process of construction plus AMD management schematics. A slide was shown with a caption saying that a wild duck was swimming in the pond but the photo was so dark no duck could be seen and Engr. Pacis had to appeal to her audience to believe that there was indeed a duck in her photo. It can be granted for argument’s sake that there was a duck. I could even concede an elephant was there. What her claim proves is that there are species indeed like the wild duck which are at risk because of the mining operations. Kinatawan Osty Calleja commented that there could be no wild duck because Lafayette itself admits that the pond is poisoned.

The Lafayette measure for controlling AMD at source is to drown the tailings under two (2) meters of water column (www.rapu-rapumining.com/?req=environment). For a while the dissolved oxygen, they say, would react with the sulfide and pyrite wastes and produce acid. When all dissolved oxygen is consumed in the reaction, production of acid will stop. So they say. This is open admission that there is indeed acid in the pond.

Moreover, this method overlooks a vital scientific fact related to the fourth reason for objection to mining operations in the island: heavy rainfall. When a drop of rain falls from some 30,000 feet, it grows larger and larger and catches oxygen in its path. Hence, when the raindrop reaches the tailings pond, there is a fresh supply of dissolved oxygen for the chemical reaction to continue. With continued deposition of tailings, the production of more and more acid is assured.

Lafayette tries to make us believe that even if acid production continues in the tailings pond, the dam will contain the pollution. It was designed and is being built by a third party – Marcelo Bolaño and Associates – to withstand “one in a thousand years of rain.” Who would not be brave enough to make this claim? Nobody lives for a thousand years and prove thereafter that Lafayette is wrong. Moreover, even if they are indeed proven wrong, they would be too dead to care about any prosecution.

No government agency assures the public that the dam will sustain heavy rains and earthquakes

According to Engr. Dayao, in reply to Kinatawan Montallana, no agency of the government can give any assurance that the dam can serve the function for which it was designed. Not DENR, not Lafayette but only Marcelo Bolaño and Associates will bear the responsibility for any failure of the dam. From this arises our first objection to the dam: Lafayette has cunningly freed itself from responsibility for dam failure.

The second objection to the dam is the mistake committed by Lafayette in supposing that certain materials were non-potentially acid forming (NAF). They were found during the test runs to be actually potentially acid forming (PAF). This is documented on Page 36 of the report of the Technical Working Group on the test run. This mistake, according to Dr. Carlito Barril, retired geochemistry professor of UP Los Baños, is enough reason to close the Lafayette mine.

The third objection to the dam is the very possible development of cracks and seepages. This is warned about by Engr. Macario Apin II during the test runs and documented in the TWG report (Page 9). Cracks and seepages can result from groundshaking due to blastings done at the open pit. Worse, they can result from earthquakes originating from two fault lines: San Miguel Fault running northwest-southeast some 10 kms north of the mine site; and the Legazpi Lineament also running northwest-southeast some 2 kms south. The dam and the mine site lie between these fault lines. Several earthquakes occurred in 2008 and 2009 with epicenters near Rapu-Rapu. The Earthquake Database of the US Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center records seven (7) earthquakes from 1973 to 2007 with epicenters within 10 kms of the island.

AMD from settling and polishing ponds, exposed surfaces and waste rock dump

Sulfide and pyrite materials are not only in the tailings pond. They are also in the settling and polishing ponds which are allowed to flow to the wetland and then the sea. They are beneath the topsoil and when the latter is removed when mining is done, they are exposed to air and water to produce acid. The waste rock dump is also exposed to rainwater and air so acid will also come from it. Flowing with runoff water during heavy rains, this acid from exposed surfaces and waste rock dump reaches the sea.

Siltation

The other contaminant in the Lafayette mine is silt from exposed surfaces. Sprinkling with water, as allegedly Lafayette is doing everyday, will not remove the threat. As I have computed, they would need 4500 cubic meters of water every day for that purpose. There is no source in Rapu-Rapu that will give them that much water. Engr. Pacis said that they source it from the ponds. This compounds the problem of water scarcity. Even the exposed surfaces will have heavy metal contaminants! Silt and heavy metals then will flow to the sea during rainy days.

Silt alone clogs gills of fish and corrals and kill them. It also kills the plankton that produces 50 to 70% of the earth’s oxygen supply by consuming carbon dioxide.

Open Pit

Any open pit exacerbates global warming. Trees and other forms of vegetation (which produce a net supply of oxygen) are removed to dig the open pit. The silt of waste from the open pit is carried by rainwater to the sea and kills the plankton.

Moreover, the Lafayette open pit is a violation of the 7th commandment on climate change adaptation proclaimed by the Provincial Government of Albay in October 2007. The use of open pits is renounced by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”

Heavy metals, bioaccumulation and biomagnification

Heavy metals uncovered by mining kill mangroves and cause diseases among humans. Mercury naturally occurs in Rapu-Rapu as testified to by the MGB through its Factsheet dated February 2, 2006. Its effect on human health needs no elaboration.

Statements from DENR and Lafayette trying to calm people through assurances that the level of heavy metal contamination is within “tolerable limits” is belied when bioaccumulation and biomagnification are established. Bioaccumulation is the increase in concentration of a pollutant from the environment to the first organism in a food chain. Biomagnification is the increase in concentration of a pollutant from one link in a food chain to another

The surroundings may be within the ‘tolerable limit” for heavy metal contamination but the persistent presence of the contaminants in the air, water, sediments or even organisms plus the successive consumption through the food chain will increase their concentration in higher-order consumers like humans.

Excretion of mercury may be faster among lactating females because the contaminant goes out with the milk only to be sucked by the baby!

Heavy metals may be excreted but only to return to the environment and from there they will again be consumed by plants and animals which will then be consumed by humans. So heavy metals will keep on circulating in the environment and human body whereas they used to be covered by topsoil until unearthed by mining operations.

To all these rebuttals, the Lafayette representatives could only nod their heads.

Given all these information about Lafayette AMD management and its dam, one can easily understand why acid, silt and heavy metals flow to the sea. The final proof of this is the severely diminished fish catch in Albay Gulf. Engr. Pacis herself admitted during the November 3 hearing that they could see corrals but not fish. She adds, “as to the reason, we do not know.” The fishermen report the decline to have started in 2005, the very year Lafayette began full operations. Also, the RRMI advertisement over Home Radio in Legazpi City admits severe fish catch decline but blames it on the cutting of mangroves by the residents themselves. As we have rebutted, the island residents have not cut the mangroves in the scale that Lafayette wants the world to believe; they have made sustainable use of them for decades but no decline in fish catch happened until 2005 when Lafayette mining went full blast. The death of mangroves is caused by heavy metal contamination as two scientific studies show*. In Rapu-Rapu the mining operations have unleashed heavy metals that used to be buried under the topsoil.

(* http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1992824; http://marine-habitats.suite101.com/article.cfm/mangrove_deforestation_affects_coral_reefs)

In brief, three indicators show how ineffective Lafayette’s environmental management is: (1) the yellow, red, orange and brown coloration of the creeks as evidence of contamination that flows to the sea; (2) severe decline in fish catch in Albay Gulf since 2005; and (3) growing poverty and increasing incidents of disease in the island.

Up to this time, Lafayette executives do not accept the challenge which I gave on October 20, 2009 and repeated in front of them on November 3, 2009 for them to bathe in the mouth of the creeks or eat fish if any is caught in the area. This is further proof that they themselves are not convinced that their operations are clean.

The Lafayette representatives also cited their aesthetic standards for the mine site. In reply, we say that the mine site may look very beautiful but it does not take away the danger that lurks there. Something may be beautiful outside but deep inside it can be very dangerous.

Corporate structure

Mrs. Calleja asked to be given the floor while I prepared my laptop for the presentation. She claimed that while RRPI is 100% foreign-owned, RRMI is 60% Filipino-owned as mandated by law. Disputing the claim, I showed to the committee the corporate structure during the time of the Australians. In the diagram, RRMI’s Filipino shares are 60% of 60% and hence 36% only. She replied that it was the old structure. In reply, I showed the new diagram taken from the 2008 Annual Report of MSC. There, the percentages of ownership are the same. The only change was in the replacement of Lafayette Mining Ltd by the Kores-LGI-MSC group. F&N Holdings, Inc. is replaced by JV Calleja Group. Everything else, specially the percentages of shares held, is the same. Mrs. Calleja said that the report is for 2008 and, she implied, is therefore old. This is not a valid argument because the 2008 report of MSC is the latest. Even if corrections were made in 2009, still Lafayette has to account for those years when they did not comply with the 60% Filipino ownership requirement. It is already sad that our surroundings are messed up by Lafayette’s operations. It is more unfortunate that our own laws are being used to minimize the taxes they pay and gotten around with to our disadvantage.

Certification from ISO and recognition from PCAPI

Lafayette again brought up their ISO Certification 14001 and added the recognition from the Pollution Control Adjudicators of the Philippines, Inc. Our reply to these is simple:

These certification and recognition do not address the island’s small size, steep slopes, heavy rainfall, sulfide and pyrite rocks that produce acid, and use of cyanide which by experience has been shown to be prone to spills that killed fish and plankton. The certification and recognition do not absolve Lafayette from the confirmed fishkills on October 11 and 31, 2005; July 20, 2006; first week of October 2007; and October 26-29, 2007.

The certification and recognition do not address the use of the open pit technology which removes the topsoil and renders the land unarable for decades and reduces the population of plants that also consume carbon dioxide.

The certification and recognition do not address the PEZA exemption of Lafayette from taxes on income earned from production of precious and base metals.

We should also note that the certification and recognition do not solve the fishermen’s problem of diminished catch in fishing grounds near the island and their need to go far out into the Pacific Ocean facing gigantic waves using tiny boats just to pursue their livelihood.

We should also note that the certification and recognition do not cure the diseases related to heavy metal contamination suffered by residents of Rapu-Rapu and coastal towns of Sorsogon.

The ISO Certification is only for the needs of Lafayette. It is never for us.

Lafayette mining and Rapu-Rapu’s poverty

The situation in Rapu-Rapu Island is desperate, according to a group of environmentalists who conducted an ocular and immersion activity on May 11-13 in the island. Hunger, disease and ecological disasters are unabated and continue to worsen day by day. It demands the attention of local and national authorities.

Talking to residents of Carugcog, Tinopan, Buenavista, Viga and other villages, the ISM participants, according to Dr. Geneve Rivera of Health Alliance for Democracy, learned that children die of diarrhea and vomiting for lack of medical services. Respiratory problems are common. These cases, they confirm, never happened with the same frequency in the past as after the start of mining operations.

Fish is scarce in the waters offshore. Even “tagunason,” an edible marine organism that used to be abundant on the shorelines during low tide, is gone. They cannot bathe in the beaches because they experience skin itch and rashes. Mrs. Jeanny Balbin cries as she recounts how her three children almost died after eating shellfish.

The creeks are yellowish-red, an indication of acid mine drainage, and no longer host freshwater fish. The dap-dap trees along the banks are dead. Corrals still stand but are pale and likewise dead, according to Mr. Clemente Baustista of Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment. No fish can be seen around them. The residents estimate that 50% of the corrals near Buenavista are dead. This explains the observation that fish catch is down from 20 kilograms per outing to almost zero. The blue marlin used to be abundant in April and May and 20 could be caught in years past. This year, only 6 have been caught. For the entire island, fish catch decline is estimated at 80-90% since the mine started to operate, according to PAMALAKAYA national chair Mr. Fernando Hicap.There is severe scarcity of drinking water.

On August 21-23, 2009, Pangataman-Bikol, an environmental NGO, sent a relief mission to Mananao, Linao and Tinopan. The team saw extreme poverty. The near-zero fish catch was confirmed. They saw an old woman who earns her living by making hard brooms from coconut midribs. She makes four a day and sells each for P15. Her fingers have suffered cuts from the effort. But even her humble livelihood is under threat because the mining companies cut coconut trees (without permit according to the PCA in Legazpi) and are bent on expanding the mining area.

With the information on Page 21 of the 2008 MSC Annual Report that 5,218 hec is the mine area, 93.36% of the island, up from the previously known 82.5%, is under threat of destruction.

As in colonial times, foreigners are unbridled in their exploitation of our natural resources, leaving Filipinos destitute and robbed of their chance to rise from poverty. In the past, we had the Blood Compact. Today we have the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement and Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement. In the past we had the Encomienda System. Today we have the Mining Industry Liberalization Policy.

ang lahi ni Legaspi ay ating binubuhay sa lubos na kasaganaan, ating pinagtatamasa at binubusog, kahit abutin natin ang kasalatan at kadayukdukan
- Andres Bonifacio
“Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog”

Based on the monitoring of anti-mining liberalization alliance Defend Patrimony, there are already eight Provincial Governments that have declared moratorium on large-scale mining: Capiz, Western Samar, Northern Samar, Samar, Marinduque, Mindoro Oriental, North Cotabato and Palawan (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/lgus-urged-follow-palawans-ban-mining). In addition, Nueva Vizcaya, Puerto Princesa City (https://www.yehey.com/news/Article.aspx?id=177393), Sitio Taocanga (Brgy Calinawan, Manay, Davao Oriental) followed suit.

Albay can do the same.

In closing, I declared during the committee hearing:

For a very long time after Lafayette is done mining in Rapu-Rapu the tailings deposit and contamination will hang like the sword of Damocles over the residents of the island. Throughout that period of thirty or more years, the land will yield no fruit and the sea, no fish. Future generations will ask: What did we do in our time to prevent it?

On our part we will continue to call for mine closure and document everything. The day will come when the history of Albay is read by our grandchildren, the names of those accountable will be forever condemned.

The personnel of Lafayette (yes I insist on calling that entity Lafayette) are unrepentant for all the environmental destruction and economic injustice they have inflicted on Rapu-Rapu. In due time, we believe, justice will be served.

November 3, 2009

Thursday, October 29, 2009

WHILE RAPU-RAPU WEEPS

On October 20, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay, upon the lead of Kinatawan July Tingzon, summoned the Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. to present information regarding tax payments and environmental impact of the latter’s mining operations. Mrs. Cecille Calleja claimed that the communication they received required them to present tax information only. They were not ready to present data on environmental impact so she asked for another audience with the Board. Two other representatives verbally informed the SPA on tax payments and social development projects. (Their Powerpoint presentation would not work.) Total tax payments from 2005 to 2008 as alleged by RRMI is over P500 million. The SDMP budget for 2008 was P16 million. As claimed by Ms. Lani Lanuzo, the money was given to village officials who then determined how it would be spent.

The representative from BIR Legazpi confirmed the claims of tax payments. She said that when RRMI became a big tax payer in 2008, the money then went to BIR national office. She pleaded to the SPA to support the effort of BIR Legazpi to have the payments made in the local revenue office. She was concerned about the tax collection performance of her office but not with the availment of tax windfall by the people of Rapu-Rapu. (Please read SARA response to claims about tax payments.)

A representative from the Philippine Economic Zone Authority confirmed the tax exemption privileges of Rapu-Rapu Processing, Inc. for four (4) years.

As SARA Spokesperson, I presented the video “Rapu-Rapu” made by Bikol Express showing the suffering of the people of Rapu-Rapu due to the previous fishkills and ongoing decline in fish catch. I also showed them the complex corporate structure relating RRMI, RRPI, LPI, Kores, LGI, MSC, Ungay-Malobago, Inc, and JV Calleja Group. I emphasized that the diagram was reliable because it came from the Annual Report of MSC in 2008. It was important to clarify the corporate structure because the RRMI representatives tried so hard to make the audience believe that they are not “Lafayette.” I asserted that they are still “Lafayette” as technically manifested by the continued ownership of the mine by “Lafayette Philippines, Inc.” Towards the close of the presentations, Mrs. Calleja insisted that they are not “Lafayette” anymore. Instead, they are “Korea Malaysia Philippines or KMP.” With the same people who were in “Lafayette”, this alleged “KMP” is a mere new name for the same juridical entity. If Satan is called Lucifer, he is the same devil.

The presentations of RRMI sounded like the SONA of President Gloria M. Arroyo. So much is claimed on paper but virtually nothing is seen on the ground. Notably the alleged accomplishments are mostly for the three "direct impact barangays" even as the damage of mining operations is felt as far as Barangay Mananao in the north; Rawis, Legazpi City in the west; and Prieto Diaz, Sorsogon in the south. While the island residents are in pain back in Rapu-Rapu, RRMI representatives were joyous in the session hall of the SPA. This, I believe, is the typical attitude of the Lafayette people. They refuse to see the issue from the viewpoint of the masses. They can afford to exhibit mirth while the people of Rapu-Rapu, as shown in the video “Rapu-Rapu” by Bikol Express, are weeping over the loss of their livelihood and patrimony.

Virgilio S. Perdigon, Jr.

Response of SARA to the Alleged Tax Payments of RRMI

The Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance responds as follows to the statements of RRMI, BIR and PEZA re tax payments:

1. The environmental damage is much more than the benefits from alleged taxes. The current and future benefits from farming and fishing will be almost totally wiped out. The alleged taxes are in the millions; farming and fishing benefits are beyond quantification, being the source of sustenance for all generations of island residents.

2. There is no verification of actual payment. Government agencies and mining companies have been accused of collusion and cover-up.

3. There is no independent validation of income declared by RRMI; hence, there is no certainty that the amounts allegedly paid as taxes are correct.

4. The alleged taxes are from RRMI only. RRPI enjoys exemptions as PEZA privileges. This could be the reason for the separation of the two companies. RRPI is 100% foreign-owned; RRMI is 64% foreign-owned. The claim is that the privileges are for four (4) years. The PEZA law stipulates six (6) years which can be extended to eight (8) years (Special Economic Zone Act of 1995 Rule XV Section 6). It is not surprising then that the mine life is set at eight (8) years.

5. The local BIR office wants the taxes to be paid to them instead of BIR national office to improve the former’s tax collection performance. They did not express desire to ensure that the benefits accrue to the residents of the island.

6. There are discrepancies between taxes alleged by RRMI and those reported by MGB.

7. There is no visible benefit for the residents of the island in terms of roads, bridges, health services, and other projects and programs. For example, it still takes 7 hours for residents of Tinopan and Binosawan to carry on their backs the farm produce to Poblacion.

In the light of these considerations, the Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance refutes the alleged payment of taxes as justification for the continued operation of the mine. We maintain our stand that the mine should be closed, and that the mining companies clean up the contaminated areas, pay for the damages, and leave the island. We also reiterate our call for the implementation of alternative options for the development of Rapu-Rapu such as land distribution, farm subsidies, potable water system, decent housing, fast transportation, environment-friendly roads, power generation, and preservation of the island’s ecosystem.

Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance
October 20, 2009

Saturday, October 10, 2009

SARA Calls for Boycott of LG Products

The mining operations in Rapu-Rapu have resulted in severe decline in fish catch in the waters around the island. Hunger and poverty are daily felt by the residents. Diseases like diarrhea and skin rashes have afflicted them. In the face of these scorges, the mining companies advertise over the radio that the decline in fish catch is the result of the destruction of the mangrove forests by the residents of Rapu-Rapu. This is insult added to injury! The miners overlook the scientific fact that mangroves are destroyed by contamination from metals like copper, zinc, cadmium and nickel. Copper and zinc are the object of mining operations, aside from gold and silver. In the process, they also unleash naturally occurring mercury and cadmium. In other words, the mining operations cause the destruction of the mangroves. Hence, the mining operations cause the decline in fish catch. On top of this, the scattering of silt around the island is killing the local fish species and driving away the migratory ones.

There are several companies involved in the mining operations: Lafayette Philippines Inc. (LPI) which owns Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. and Rapu-Rapu Processing, Inc.; Korea Resources Corporation (Kores); LG International Corporation; Malaysia Smelting Corporation which own LPI; and Rapu-Rapu Holdings, Inc.; JV Calleja Group; Ungay-Malobago Mines, Inc.; and Toronto Ventures, Inc. which have minor stakes in the mine. They are related in a complex arrangement but a graphical depiction on the right side of this page would help the reader understand.

In view of the unrepentant attitude of the mining companies, the Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance launched a non-violent protest action plan. The first stage is the call for boycott of LG products – refrigerators, washing machines, cellphones, flat screens, airconditioners, etc. LG has retail outlets in the local economy. With the vital participation of our friends in other countries, the impact would be multiplied.

Through this non-violent protest action, we will make LG feel how it is to lose one’s income. An estimated 14,000 fishermen and their dependents have already lost theirs, from 60 to 93 %, according to a study by Ibon Foundation.

Should the mining companies not close the Rapu-Rapu mine, in 2010 we will expand our boycott call to cover other Korean products because Korea Resources Corporation is owned by the South Korean government which has turned a deaf ear to the plight of the island residents. Our fathers and grandfathers shed their blood in the Korean War to defend their freedom in the 1950’s. Today, a large number of their children and grandchildren are being oppressed by South Koreans through Kores and LG. What ingratitude!

So, to our friends the world over, we are seeking help. The suffering of the people of Rapu-Rapu island should not last any longer. Please come to their aid. Boycott LG products!

Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance

Thursday, October 1, 2009

MSC Sells 30% Share in Rapu-Rapu Mine

Published: 2009/09/04

MALAYSIA Smelting Corp Bhd (MSC) said it will sell its 30 per cent stake in the Rapu Rapu polymetallic project in Philippines which it bought on April 17 last year.

This is another non-tin asset that MSC is planning to sell apart from the recent proposed divestment of a 22.1 per cent stake in Australia 's gold mining company Beaconsfield Gold NL.

MSC told Bursa Malaysia the sale is in line with the company's focus to reduce cost and debt.

"The company has also decided not to proceed with the proposed bonus and rights issues in view of its decision to divest some of the group's non-tin assets," it said.

http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/BURSMSC/Article/index_html

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. Blames Island Residents for Decline in Fish Catch

In a paid advertisement through Home Radio, an FM station in Legazpi City, RRMI states during the 3 pm commercial break:

In Forcus - coastal resource protection and conservation presented to you by Rapu-Rapu Minerals, Inc. The destruction of mangroves or bakawan forests are (sic) one of the major reasons for the declining fish catch in the municipality of Rapu-Rapu. More than 80% of mangrove forests have been cut down for firewood, charcoal, fish farming and residential settlements. In Focus – coastal resource protection and conservation presented to you by Rapu-Rapu Minerals Inc. Best practices are our guiding principle.

This adds insult to injury. This is not so different from the “Lollipop Affair” when a certain Joey Cubias said something to this effect:

The people of Rapu-Rapu cannot be satisfied with just one lollipop. They demand ten.

The mining company apologized to the local government of Rapu-Rapu and booted Cubias. The release of the advertisement on the decline in fish catch exposes the hypocrisy of the “new management” of the mine. After apologizing for the Cubias faux pas, they trample upon the dignity of the residents anew by blaming them for the loss of their livelihood – fishing.

The apologists of Lafayette mining have been groping for a convincing defense against the charge that contamination of the seawater around Rapu-Rapu is the actual cause of fish catch decline. First, they blamed the phenomenon on climate change. This was thwarted with the argument that open pit mining aggravates climate change. If climate change caused fish catch decline, then by transitivity, the mining operation caused the drastic fish catch decline! This reasoning is as simple as the logism that if A caused B and B caused C, then A caused C.

Second, the apologists of Lafayette mining blamed the decline in fish catch on illegal fishing. To this we have responded. There has been illegal fishing in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. But no decline in fish catch happened. Moreover, the damage done by illegal fishing can easily be repaired by the natural process of fish rebreeding in one or two seasons. Today, the Bantay Dagat operatives (Sea Guards) have been patrolling Albay Gulf so that illegal fishing has been reduced. Since natural rebreeding can restore the fish population in a few seasons, how can illegal fishing be blamed for the drastic decline in fish catch? One fact is obvious but it seems Lafayette cannot see it: the rapid decline in fish catch started in 2005. That was also the year mining operations went full blast.

Third, the apologists of Lafayette mining blamed trawl fishing. In response, the fishermen themselves testify that trawl fishing cannot be done in Albay Gulf because the net would get entangled in the corrals and rocks. They themselves do not see any trawl ships entering Albay Gulf. They see them in the Pacific Ocean. Out there where trawls ply, the fish are abundant but the boats of Rapu-Rapu fishermen are too small for the big waves.

The fourth alibi of the apologists of Lafayette mining, namely the destruction of mangroves by the residents of the island, is also easily debunked by two scientific studies:

(1) M. W. Yim and N. F. Y. Tam; Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China

Effects of wastewater-borne heavy metals on growth of young plants (9-month-old Bruguiera gymnorrhiza) and soil microbial activities in mangrove microcosms were evaluated. During the 26-week loading period, each mangrove microcosm received 31.2 litres synthetic wastewater of three strengths: normal, medium (5 times of normal strength) and strong (10 times of normal strength). Normal strength wastewater had Cu, Zn, Cd, Cr and Ni concentrations of 3, 5, 0.2, 2 and 3 mg l−1, respectively. Plant growth and total plant biomass in wastewater-treated microcosms were lower than that in the control, and the maximum reduction was found in microcosms receiving strong wastewater. Alkaline phosphatase activity and ATP contents of the mangrove soils receiving wastewater were also reduced. More than 95% reduction in these two parameters was found in soils loaded with strong wastewater. Microtox test demonstrated that soil elutriates obtained from microcosms receiving strong wastewater were of the greatest toxicity (EC50 was 23%). These results show that high concentrations of heavy metals present in strong wastewater were toxic and posed negative effects to both mangrove plants and soil microbial activities. Microbial activities were generally more sensitive to the toxicity of heavy metals than plants. (boldface and italics supplied)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-47XPGRF-W&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1012143229&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4df2f84202a26ded5d17680e180acaa3
20090915

(2) Megan Jugwi; Mangrove Deforestation Affects Coral Reefs; Aug 10, 2009

Although the leggy trees of a mangrove forest seem to have little in common with the clear blue waters of a colorful coral reef, these two ecosystems are closely connected to each other. Mangrove deforestation not only means loss of habitat for mangrove wildlife such as mudskippers, birds, and deer. Mangrove deforestation also affects coral reefs and this wider impact must be understood.

The Extent of Mangrove Deforestation
Twenty percent of the world’s mangrove forests have been lost since 1980, says the January 2008 report “Loss of mangroves alarming” from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). The report goes on to say that mangrove deforestation is mostly due to shrimp and fish farming, agriculture, pollution, and tourism. Mangroves provide many ecosystem services including protecting the shore from erosion, providing wood and food to humans, and are a home to a wide range of animals.

Where Mangroves and Corals Interact
Mangrove forests and coral reefs do not always occur near each other. However, these two ecosystems are neighbors often enough that important biological and physical interactions have been observed. Places as disparate as Indonesia, Australia, and the Caribbean have mangrove coastlines not far from coral reefs. The placement of mangroves, coral reefs, and the sometimes-intermediary sea grass beds can be seen in the United Nations Environmental Program’s maps “Global Distribution of Coral, Mangrove, and Seagrass Diversity” at the UNEP/GRID-Arendal Site.

Mangroves Home to Baby Reef Fish
The loss of mangrove forests affect reef fish in a very direct way reports John Roach in the February 2004 National Geographic article “Mangroves Are Nurseries for Reef Fish, Study Finds”. Researchers found that coral reefs near mangroves had twice as many fish as those far from mangrove forests. Many fish are born in seagrass beds and live there until they are too big to hide from predators. They then move on to mangroves to grow a bit more before moving on to reefs. In areas without mangroves, the fish move to the reefs when they are smaller and are easier prey for predators. Mangroves are thus important to healthy, abundant reef communities.

Mangrove Loss Leads to Polluted Coral Reefs
The roots of mangrove trees do an important job of keeping the coastline’s soil intact and out of the ocean. Unfortunately, the loss of mangrove forests can lead to silt traveling out to sea. The eroding coastline is bad for land inhabitants, but it also leads to the siltation of coral reefs. This often means death for corals that are smothered by soil. As the FAO notes in its article, mangroves are important in protecting corals from erosion.

http://marine-habitats.suite101.com/article.cfm/mangrove_deforestation_affects_coral_reefs
20090915

The first study says: Copper, zinc, cadmium and nickel contamination severely reduced the growth of mangroves. High concentrations of heavy metals present in strong wastewater were toxic and posed negative effects to both mangrove plants and soil microbial activities.
In Rapu-Rapu, UP NSRI study identified the first three elements (Cu, Zn and Cd) as among the contaminants. We repeat: one fact is obvious but it seems Lafayette cannot see it: the rapid decline in fish catch started in 2005. That was also the year mining operations went full blast.

The residents of the island are not responsible for the release of heavy metals to the seawater around the island. The mining operators did that as proven in 2005, 2006 and 2007 fishkills. If no fishkill occurred in 2008 and 2009 that is due to the fact that there are no more fish to kill.

The second study says: Mangroves and coral reefs are interrelated.

The FAO report says: Mangrove deforestation is mostly due to shrimp and fish farming, agriculture, pollution, and tourism. Mangroves provide many ecosystem services including protecting the shore from erosion, providing wood and food to humans, and are a home to a wide range of animals.

The FAO itself acknowledges the legitimacy of tapping mangroves as source of fuel and food for humans. What is not legitimate is the mining of an island with a fragile ecosystem. The people of Rapu-Rapu have all the right to do these economic activities in their island and they have done them sustainably. RRMI, RRPI, RRPP, LPI, Kores, LGI, MSC and their host of apologists are intruders backed solely by the fiat of Malacañang. The radio advertisement blaming the destruction of mangroves on the people of Rapu-Rapu has neither scientific nor moral basis.

We do not see any shrimp and fish farming around Rapu-Rapu! Bicol University attempted a seaweed culture project there but the seaweed did not grow as attested to by Dr. Nimfa Pelea during the meeting of PATLEPAM on October 3, 2008. Agriculture in Rapu-Rapu is down because of the encroachment of the open pit on their farmlands and diversion of irrigation water from the farms to the mine site. Recall that the Secretary of the Rapu-Rapu Sangguniang Bayan, Mr. Allan Asuncion, wrote a letter to Engr. Rogelio E. Corpus (then LPI General Manager for Operations and currently RRMI Senior Vice-President for Mine Operations) dated September 12, 2007 to convey the complaint of the Pagcolbon Barangay Captain about the “drought and scarcity or total absence of potable water supply” in his barangay. No reply was reported.

There is no significant tourism industry to speak of in Rapu-Rapu. What is glaring in that island is pollution. The release of naturally occurring mercury; the contamination with copper, zinc, cadmium, lead and arsenic; and the scattering of silt have polluted the seawater around Rapu-Rapu. This is the only cause of the destruction of the mangroves and the corals. This is the result of Lafayette mining.

Lafayette must own up to its culpability for the environmental damage in Rapu-Rapu and to the economic injustice inflicted on the people. They should stop citing unscientific alibis. As the captain of the Greenpeace ship Esperanza told them: They should pack up, clean up, pay up and take off.

RRMI, RRPI, RRPP, LPI, Kores, LGI, MSC and their host of apologists should stop thinking that the people of Rapu-Rapu and the Bicol Region can be deceived by their lies! If the decline in fish catch is due to the destruction of mangroves by residents of the island and not to pollution, then we challenge all executives of RRMI, RRPI, RRPP, LPI, Kores, LGI, MSC and their host of apologists to swim for one hour every weekend in the mouths of the creeks where they discharge wastewater and eat fish if they can catch any. If they can do that then their radio advertisement can be believed. If they cannot, then it is “baseless, speculative and in no way supported by facts or evidence” to quote Engr. Corpus in his statement to the Business Mirror on June 9, 2009.

Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance
September 15, 2009

Thursday, September 3, 2009

A Man Called Python

Fact 1: On August 31, 2009 a man known as “Sawa” (pronounced /sah-HWA/) or “Python” was reported as having been pursued by the Philippine National Police Maritime Command for illegal fishing. He eluded the police by escaping upland to the barangay of Morocborocan but his equipment were confiscated. The report said his group was using a compressor. The fish they caught was 30 kgs.

Fact 2: A certain “Sawa” is known in Rapu-Rapu as a resident of sitio (a sub-unit of a village) Acal in the barangay (village) of Manano. He is also a member of the village council. The same person is known in the island as a pro-mining barangay kagawad (councilor).

Fact 3: The mining company that operates in Rapu-Rapu has completed its exploration of the Mananao area.

Fact 4: The mining company has been arguing that the decline in fish catch around the waters of Rapu-Rapu is due to illegal fishing.

Fact 5: Illegal fishing was rampant in the past decades but the fish catch never declined. Today, with Bantay Dagat (Sea Guards), illegal fishing is not as rampant.

Fact 6: The full scale operation of Lafayette Philippines, Inc. in Rapu-Rapu started in 2005. That was also the year when fish catch drastically declined.

Conclusion 1: From Facts 1 and 2 it can be concluded that the pro-mining kagawad is also an illegal fisher.

Conclusion 2: From Facts 2 and 3 it can be concluded that “Sawa” supports the mining operation being started in the Mananao area.

Conclusion 3: From Facts 3 and 4 it can be concluded that the mining company continues to dig for minerals in Rapu-Rapu because they do not acknowledge that the mining operation damages the fishing industry.

Conclusion 4: From the preceding it can be shown that miners and illegal fishers are in cahoots as they destroy the island and its surrounding waters.

Conclusion 5: From Facts 5 and 6 it can be concluded that the decline in fish catch cannot be attributed to illegal fishing but to the mining operation in Rapu-Rapu.

We, the Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance, oppose illegal fishing. We point out, nevertheless, that the impact of mining is many times more damaging. Hence, we insist that the mine should be closed!

Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance
September 2, 2009

What can we do? Our grandfathers shed their blood in the Korean War of the 1950's to save South Korea from Kim Il Sung. Today, South Koreans are taking part in the destruction of Rapu-Rapu. Kores is owned by the South Korean government. We can petition them to withdraw from Rapu-Rapu. LGI is a South Korean company. The Save Rapu-Rapu Alliance is calling on everyone to boycott LGI products - cellphones, aircons, flat screens, washing machines, etc. and strike a blow for justice. Make them feel how it is to lose income the way the fishermen around Albay Gulf have lost theirs. We still do not know how to strike back at MSC. Perhaps, we can call on all Malaysian environmentalists to support us. The people of Rapu-Rapu are calling for help to save their island!

Damaged pump on board the Lady Jacqueline

Greenspeak Advisory - Aug 4 2008

Upon the advice of our partners and concerned collaborators, we are closing the Greenspeak / Web messages section of this blog. Recently, instead of sensible discussions, we have observed a surge in vitriolic reactions and hate comments, mainly from pro-mining advocates and Lafayette employees. Anti-mining advocates have also responded in kind. So, much as we would like to keep the free flow of ideas - from both sides of the mining question - on how best we can help Rapu-Rapu, the partners feel that the Greenspeak section no longer serves its purpose. Thus, the decision to close it. We apologize, especially to our avid (and rabid) posters, both pro & anti-mining, for whatever feelings of disappointment or loss our decision may have caused them. Comments and reactions may still be posted at the comments section of the blog posts.

Book on Mining in Rapu-Rapu

To set the black propaganda straight, Dr. Emelina G. Regis never applied for any position at Lafayette, RRMI, RRPI, RRPP, or any of their subsidiaries. This book contains damning scientific research on the adverse impacts of mining to the island ecosystem of Rapu-Rapu. To date neither the DENR nor RRMI-RRPI responded to the evidence and conclusions of Dr. Regis' studies. The mining company opts instead to float the bogus claim that Dr. Regis is a disgruntled applicant at Lafayette. The book is published by Ateneo de Naga University (2008).

1

2

3

The Final Verdict

RRPP Income from 2005 to 2012

RRPP Income in 2012

AND NOW THE END IS NEAR . . .

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

18

25

26

27

28

30

33

35

38

40

45

46

47

48

49

51

55

56

57

58

59

60 Finale

RRPP Income and Taxes in 2011

RRPP Income and Taxes in 2010