The announcement of the ongoing test operations of the Rapu-Rapu mine in Albay prior to its planned reopening next week makes us revisit the findings of the Rapu-Rapu Fact Finding Commission (RRFFC) on the mine spills that occurred nearly three years to this date. The mine is now under the majority control of Korean Resources, Incorporated (KORES) and LG International Corporation together with the Malaysia Smelting Corp Bhd. The Rapu-Rapu mine was briefly reopened after the mine spill on February 2007 but was again closed after typhoon damage in late 2007.
 
A major issue raised by the RRFFC is the ability to control acid mine drainage (AMD) in the mine. Acid mine drainage is outflow of acidic water from rocks and overburden as part of the rock weathering process. The weathering process is exacerbated by large-scale earth disturbances from mining activities exposing rocks to oxygen and it usually occurs within rocks containing an abundance of metal sulfides. AMD can also be accelerated by colonies of bacteria that occur naturally in such conditions. In his introduction to the commission's report, the vice-chairman of the RRFFC Charles Avila noted that AMD is tantamount to “mining's multibillion-dollar environmental time bomb”.
 
The RRFFC pointed out that the subaquaeous deposition which the previous company has adopted has been proven successful in large mines in flat terrain but is not generally used in hilly terrains such as the steep slope found in Rapu-Rapu. They further pointed out that in a hilly terrain, the slope and rapid flow of fluids are too great to achieve stagnant oxygen-free conditions. As such, subaquaeous deposition may be counterproductive and actually enhance the production and leaching of acid products.
 
The RRFFC also found fault and inadequacy with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Compliance Certifcate (ECC) of the previous mine operator Lafayette Philippines Incorporated (LPI). They also pointed that LPI failed to answer apprehensions relating to AMD, its effects on the Rapu-Rapu environment and the people’s health and the natural hazards of mining extremely prone in the small island ecosystem. Furthermore, the comission found that 12 of the 29 conditionalities in the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) were found violated by the LPI Group. Have KORES and the LG Corp. already addressed the problems raised by the RRFFC in the EIS and ECC of LPI?
 
The problem of having an open pit mine in a small island ecosystem is also an important point raised by the RRFFC. The commission said that the tailings incidents in 2005 and their consequences are a result of the LPI failing to consider the characteristics of a small island ecosystem in their environmental hazard prevention and mitigation strategies as well as in their mining design and operations. This failure to address cumulative impacts of an environmentally critical project should have been already a ground for revocation of ECC, the commission pointed out.
 
In addition, the commission also noted the fact that during the lifetime of the Rapu-Rapu mine, the most that the government will get is its share in the MPSA. This is in the form of excise tax that is two percent (2%) both in the case of (a) copper and other metallic products and (b) gold and chromite. But with the tax breaks in the Mining Act of 1995 and the PEZA Law incentives, the Philippines stand to forgo at least 60.8% (or USD 12.45 million) over the expected life of the mine leaving only around P413.5 million collectible in favor of the Philippine government.
 
The polymetallic project’s social acceptability was also raised in the commission's report. In the ECC of the project, issues of the fragile nature of Rapu-Rapu’s island ecosystem, the potential for acid mine drainage (AMD) and the torrential rain weather pattern in the area were raised. Until now, these same objections are still being raised by community organizations such as Sagip-Isla and Umalpas-Ka and concerned environmental organizations opposing the mine.
 
Several of the recommendations of the RRFFC remain unheeded: to set up a fund for the compensation of health victims and rehabilitation of the impacts of mine operations, the cancellation of the PEZA registration and the ECC of the mine, the investigation by the BIR of the Lafayette group and the review of the provisions of the Philippine Mining Act 1995 specifically on the ownership and management of mining firms and operations.
 
With these lessons clearly spelled out in the RRFFC report, it makes us all wonder if the DENR has learned from it or is it wantonly ignoring the report to the detriment of the people of Rapu-Rapu and our country?