Mining 56, Presentation at Mining PH Conference 2017

Last month during the Mining Philippines Conference 2017, I was one of 6 panel discussants in one focus group discussion.

First I discussed the recent rants vs. open pit mining by ex-DENR Sec. Gina Lopez and why many of her points are wrong or non-sensical at the least. Then I discussed other issues about soil degradation, the coming global cooling and the need for more water catchments like mined-out open pits, then briefly about mining taxes.

Some open pits have become eco-tourism attractions.

My conclusions:

(2) Mined out or decommissioned open pit mines should as much as possible be left as is, not covered with soil then reforested. Multiple purposes: (a) as man-made dam and lake to catch excess water and flash flood, (b) reduce flooding downstream during heavy rains, (c) use the lake water for fishery, irrigation, hydro-power, even possible drinking water source someday, (d) or simply for eco-tourism.

(3) Current mining taxation (incl. royalties, regulatory fees, mandatory contributions) are high and plentiful. Any tax hike like raising mining excise tax from 2% to 10% should be compensated by a cut or abolition of other taxes and fees.

The 16-slides presentation is available here.
Meanwhile, some photos during our panel discussion that afternoon.

Photo credits: Mining Philippines (COMP) fb page.
----------------

See also: 

Mining 53, Cobalt mining for electric cars, August 10, 2017 

Mining 54, Ralph Abainza on water table and Gina Lopez, September 30, 2017 

Mining 55, Kaleidoscope forum by UP MINERS, October 01, 2017

Mining 16: CSR, WWF and Environmental Alarmism

The corporate social responsibility (CSR) of a company is to satisfy its (a) customers via good quality products and services at a good and competitive price, (b) workers via good pay and benefits and safe working conditions, (c) shareholders via good returns on  their investments. For companies in the extractive sector like oil, gas and mining, (d) minimize environmental damage and rehabilitation after site closure.

That's my own understanding or definition of CSR. I don't believe that a company has the "responsibility" to provide scholarships to poor students, conduct medical missions, reforestation, etc. while it bleeds its employees with super low wages and dangerous working conditions, or produce lousy or over-priced products and services to its customers. Any PR services like giving scholarships, medical missions, etc. should be done after satisfying the three (or four) important players in the company. My previous articles on the subject are here,
CSR as "mandatory requirement" = extortionism, April 05, 2006 
CSR of a company is to make profit, March 03, 2011.

Nonetheless, drawing up a CSR varies from one company or industry association to another, there is no single "CSR for all companies" in a given industry, sector or country. And it's good to have variety and diversity in how companies and private enterprises define their own CSR. 

During the Mining Conference 2012 in Sofitel Hotel last September, a presentation by the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis (IDEAS), CSR Mining Scorecard Initiatives: Zooming in on the CSR Industry Scorecard, these slides were among those shown.


CSR of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP), and its CSR Guidebook. Each of the six pillars of the Code have "elements" and details. 

The “Australian Minerals Industry Code for Environmental Management” or "The Code‟ of 1996. This is to ensure that the country's practices in uranium mining, milling and rehabilitation meet world-class standards.

And South Africa's “Broad-based Socio-economic Empowerment Charter” (BBSEE), with a vision of  "A globally competitive mining industry that draws on the human and financial resources of all South Africa's people and offers real benefits to all South Africans."   

Then it has a scorecard for SA's mining industry focusing on human resource development, and employment equity.

What caught my attention in Australia's Code is that "The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) stepped in to review the Code in 1999, coming up with a scorecard to have a more concrete basis in reviewing performance and adherence of companies to the Code."