Rejoinder by the Working Group on Mining in the Philippines to Pelican Resources’ response to its concerns about Pelican Resources’ Sibuyan project
In February 2009, the Working Group on Mining in the Philippines published a report, “Mining in the Philippines: Mining or Food?” The full report, along with case study summaries, is available here:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited all the companies named in the report to respond to the concerns raised. Pelican Resources is one of the companies that responded, on 30 March 2009 (all of the responses are available here:
)
The following is the Working Group’s rejoinder to the comments by Pelican Resources:
09 August 2009
Joanne Bauer
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
Dear Ms Bauer,
As one of the co-authors of the report,“Philippines:Mining or Food?,I would like to respond to Pelican Resources who simply dismissed our report by stating that “ ...the article is inconsistent with the facts and therefore we make no further comment on the matter”.
Dr Robert Goodland and I are both professionals with more than 45 years experience each in the agricultural and environmental sectors and we find the statement by Pelican Resources totally unacceptable. It is disrespectable of us, the people of the Island of Sibuyan, and especially the family of Armin Marin,who was murdered on October 3rd 2007 by the head mining guard of Sibuyan Nickel Property Development Corp. (SNPDC),which is a company controlled by Pelican Resources. Pelican should alsorecognise that the majority of the people of the Island of Sibuyando not want mining on theirbeautiful island.
BHP Billiton responded to our report by stating that they had not received ore from SibuyanIsland. The point is that BHP Billiton had intended to take ore from the island as stated in the September 21st 2007 press release of Pelican Resources. BHP should have ensured that Pelican Resources was operating to the highest international environmental and human rights standards. In addition the Government of the Philippinesshould have called for a Strategic Environmental Assessment to assess the cumulative impact of the 24 proposed mines on the Island and on its peoples.
I visited the island in February 2009and stayed with the family ofthe late Armin Marin, father of five children. He was a colleague who worked for WWF. I feel very passionately about mining company guards being present at and shooting peaceful protesters at legitimate protests.
The Working Group on Mining would simply like to restate five important facts:
1Sibuyan is a very small island, only 445sq kms; it is dominated by a central mountain range, Mt Guiting-Guiting, and a very narrow but fertile coastal strip of arable land which is already being affected by climate change and rising sea level. Thepeople on this coastal strip depend on the mountain for drinking water and the irrigation of their crops.
2The current population of 56,000 is expected to rise to 90,000 within 30 years. The citizens of Sibuyan need all the available arable land they have to feed their rising population.
3The 24 mining applications,if authorised,will seriously damage watercatchments, biodiversity, agricultural and fish production. Manyof these applications are already illegal as they are within the National Park and critical water catchment areas.
4The human rights of the Indigenous People have been and are likely to be further damaged. This formerly peaceful island has been badly disturbed by mining issue.
5The island is often referred to as the Galapagos of the Philippinesbecause of its high biodiversity. It has high tourism potential which will also be damaged by mining operations.
We hope that Pelican Resources and other miners will cease their operations on the small tropical island of Sibuyan and leave the population in peace.
Clive Montgomery Wicks
Co-Author of the Publication “Philippines: Mining or Food”
Member of the Working Group on Mining in the Philippines
Vice Chair of the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy