A RESPONSE TO THE ISSUES RAISED AGAINST MINING

	“Sustainability is not finding the ideal state that will last forever. It is about managing through the inevitable change so as to satisfy present day environmental, economic and social priorities while not foreclosing the options of future generations to do the same” – Dr. Patrick Moore, Ex-Greenpeace, 1997

Over the last few years, the Philippine mining industry has been buffeted by strong negative public criticisms. This sudden prominence put the industry in the defensive amidst rising environmental awareness and community assertions to the use of the land around them.

Unwanted fears, real or perceived, created an image of the industry that is purely an environmental despoiler, forgetting the fact that mining has been a significant economic contributor in the past, the present and will be, in the future.

Notwithstanding the industry’s decline, the Philippine mining industry will remain vital and integral to the country’s overall economic agenda. Admittedly, however, modern mining is now faced with the challenges of sustaining its economic contribution, building partnerships with local governments and the communities and the need to assume full responsibility for the social and environmental impacts it generates.

EITHER WE GROW IT OR WE MINE IT…

Civilization has come to know only two basic industries during its thousand of years of existence – agriculture and mining. A clear testament to the importance of mining and minerals in our daily lives.

For most people, a day will pass without the thought of the role of mining in their lives. Many simply buy, use and dispose things without trying to know their origin. When asked… tools came from he hardware… electricity from the wall socket… cars from dealers…

Yet, if we will only take some time and think how those things were created… we will realize that all begin with mining.

Life as we know it, can never be possible without minerals. Everything from the farm implements and tools, the fertilizers used in agriculture… the trucks, cars, ships, bicycles, planes used in transportation… the fax, modems, telephones, satellites, radios used in communication… the house we live in practically came out of the ground – from the roofs, foundation, walls, paints to household appliances and fixtures – all came from minerals. 

Environmental protection itself can never be possible without… the clays used to encase hazardous wastes… the limestone to stabilize the soil… the platinum in catalytic converters to control fuel emissions… and the silver that kills bacteria in water purification systems.

Mining simply responds to the demands of society and produces the minerals needed to satisfy societal needs.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF MINING

That mining is sustainable is a predicament to many. Mining, indeed, has overtones of non-sustainability and non-renewability. However, assuming that minerals are “finite” and permanently lost once extracted is a simplistic and pigeonhole interpretation of a complex concept.

Defining the concept of sustainable development (SD) in the context of an industry is not easy. Which industry contributes to SD and how can extractive industries like mining contribute to SD?

Do we know what is good for future generations? Can we make development choices for our children? Should we extract one commodity rather than another? Should we reduce current consumption of minerals to preserve them for future generations? Is the wealth created by the extraction of a given natural resource better or worse than leaving the resource untouched?

The challenge of Sustainable Development is how to safeguard our air, fresh water, oceans, soil and the environment for future generations, while currently developing our natural resources for productive purposes to improve our welfare. Sustainable Development is feasible if the benefits from the utilization of mineral resources are continuously reinvested into other sustainable undertakings and in community support services such as health, education, culture, etc. Sustainable Development implies that spin-offs from mining are both sustainable and generated from the outset of the mining operations in order to create an inter-generational transfer. This approach can also contribute to shield the community from the vagaries of mining development resulting from mineral price swings. In other words, Sustainable Development implies that mining be fully integrated in the local and regional economy from the outset.

While ludicrous to many, the minerals industry can contribute to Sustainable Development for as long as mineral resources development is undertaken with the primary objective of maximizing environmental, economic and social benefits.

MINING AND SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT

The current Philippine policy framework for mining is anchored on Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and Presidential Decree No. 1586 or the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System.

•	PD No. 1586 or the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System

	Ensures that environmental concerns are adequately addressed in all stages of project implementation. The EIS identifies potential environmental impacts from development activities like mining and provides for mitigative or ameliorative mechanisms to minimize or eliminate such impacts. It also sets out the process in obtaining social acceptability. 

•	RA No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995

The Act is considered as the primary tool to revitalize the mining industry but with equal emphasis on both social and environmental responsibilities. The revised rules and regulations implementing the Mining Act adopted the World Commission on Environment and Development’s (Brundtland Commission) definition of Sustainable Development as its governing principle and states that:

“Mining shall adhere to the principle of sustainable development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, with the view of improving the total quality of life both now and in the future.”

In our terms, mining shall alleviate rather than depress the economic conditions in the countryside; increase rather than decrease our mineral base through continuing mineral exploration; enhance rather than degrade the environment by managing the impacts of mining activities and the rehabilitation of mining affected lands to a productive state after mining and lengthen, through recycling and substitution, the usable life of mineral resources.

SUSTAINING OUR MINERAL WEALTH

The continuity of mining as an industry depends on the interaction of three factors: geology, technology and economics. Geology allows us to discover new mineral deposits. Technology creates new uses: lowers operating costs and increases process efficiencies at the same time addressing potential environmental impacts. The dynamic nature of supply and demand defines the economics of extracting the minerals from the ground, hence, the profitability of the mine itself.

Minerals cannot be considered as wealth unless known. Geological knowledge allows the discovery of mineral deposits and therefore, increases or “replaces” minerals that have been transformed to productive use. Contrary to popular thinking, as metal consumption increases, global reserves increase, not only because of discoveries, but also because of developments in mining technology that have lowered production costs. Such developments have made it possible to recover metals from mineral deposits whose low grade previously prevented them from being profitably mined. This is clearly illustrated in Table 1 where the combined totals of global cumulative production from 1970 to 1996 and the 1997 global reserves estimates for selected metals are more than double the estimates made in 1970 by the Club of Rome.

Technology has resulted in the development of many environmentally sensitive methods and practices that has limited the industry’s environmental footprints. Indeed, there may be limits to technological advances, but we have yet to reach them.

In addition to mines, the world has a large inventory of known deposits not economically mineable today. Future technological developments may turn these deposits into mines.

Price is another factor. If demand for a metal is to increase to levels that outstrip existing supply, the market would drive the price up, thus, making it possible to convert many uneconomic deposits into viable mines. I would appear, however, that supply relative to demand has been more than adequate, given that the constant-dollar price of many metals has been declining for the past several decades.

New orebodies continue to be discovered, made possible by scientific and technological developments that allowed the discovery of hidden and deeply buried deposits. These improvements should provide a continuing supply of discoveries, even in many well-explored regions.

The interplay of these three factors accelerated the discovery of new mineral deposits and permitted the re-classification of previously uneconomic deposits. Hence, contrary to conventional thinking on the “finite” nature of minerals, minerals are constantly being renewed faster than they are being utilized.

MINING IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBALIZATION

The minerals industry has been the primary tool in improving the quality of life of the people through the creation and amplification of wealth. Metals and other products of mining are indispensable components of the global economy.

The quest for development triggers a country to pursue a development blue print by accessing all available resources. The resource base is crucial in sustaining the availability of such resources and has, in effect, dictated a country’s development option. 

The Philippines’ main resource base is its natural resources including mineral resources. The utilization of these resources, through a strong minerals industry, therefore, carries the great potential to advance the country’s economic growth. There is always a choice of producing or importing the minerals, depending on the evolving comparative advantage among economies. This option, however, requires a certain degree of economic maturity that most developing country has yet to achieve. Thus, mining remains as one of the country’s major development option to free itself from the economic deprivation and attain a better quality of life for its people.

Given this situation, the country as part of the global economy, must compete for investment capital in order to sustain many of our industries including mining. Geological prospectivity, stable economic and political conditions are some of the major considerations. However, in order to attract investors into the mining sector, a country must creates the enabling environment that will allow it to compete with other countries.

This is the very essence why the Philippine Mining Act was enacted by Congress – to provide the positive and competitive climate for mining investments with equal consideration for both social and environmental responsibilities. 

The Act allowed the government to enter into three major modes of mining rights: Exploration Permit (EP), Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) and Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA).

MINERALS FOR OUR FUTURE

Undeniably, mining, just like any human activity or industry such as manufacturing and housing development requires the use of land. Mining as a potential land use, however, depends on the accurate assessment of the land’s mineral potential. As much land as possible must be opened for mineral exploration in order to satisfy this need.
 
Minerals are considered as the rarest and most elusive among our natural resources. Traditional land use procedures cannot be applied in identifying mineral-bearing lands. The common thinking that rapid geological survey will suffice is flawed. Identification of mineral-bearing lands requires both qualitative and quantitative studies and is dependent on existing technology and economics.
 
But even the best science available cannot increase the odds of finding mineral deposits!

Nonetheless, the Mining Act recognized the need to establish certain areas as closed from development. These are areas that make substantial contribution in maintaining our biological diversity and ecological balance and/or utilized for specific purposes. Areas closed to mining include old growth forests, watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove and mossy forests, national parks, game refuges, bird sanctuaries, marine reserves/parks and protected areas established under the National Integrated Protected Areas System. Mining is also not allowed in areas that are expressly prohibited by law and/or excluded by the DENR Secretary.

On the other hand, there are certain areas that may be opened to mining, subject to the acquisition of clearance from the concerned government agencies. Among which are military and other government reservations; areas covered by small scale mining under RA7942/PD 1899; DENR Project Areas near public or private buildings, archeological and historical sites, bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams and other infrastructure projects.

•	AREA REDUCTION DURING EXPLORATION

Contrary to common belief that the grant of large tracts of land to mining contractors will result in massive land degradation, it should be emphasized that the grant of as much as 81,000 hectares for mineral exploration is subject to relinquishment.

Mineral exploration, to emphasize, is neither a land use nor a development activity but rather the scientific, non-destructive assessment of the mineral potential of the land that can possibly lead to a decision to mine. Mineral exploration is a high cost, high-risk endeavor without any guarantee of success. Mandated during the exploration period is area relinquishment, which is the progressive reduction of the contract area wherein the mining contractor returns to the Government portions of the contract that, based on its exploration activities, has low or no mineral potential.

Using the 81,000 hectares granted to an FTAA Contractor as an example, the contractor shall relinquish at least 25% of the original contract area after the second year of exploration period, the contractor shall retain only a maximum of 5,000 hectares or less per project area (or just 6.17% of the original contract area).

Exploration, however, does not always lead to mining. The odds of finding a mineral deposits is conservatively placed at 1:500 that is, for every 500 exploration projects, only one may be developed into a mine. Moreover, the decision to mine may come only after another 5 to 10 years, once all regulatory requirements and an exhaustive study of the mineral deposit had been undertaken.

MINING AND LAND USE

A look at current Philippine land uses will show that agricultural lands occupy an approximate area of 12.5 million hectares or 42% of the total Philippine land area of 30 million hectares. This area is roughly equivalent to the combined land area of Region I, II, III, IV and V plus the Province of Benguet. Comparatively, mineral lands or land covered by perfected mining rights granted since 1902 encompassed an area of about 800,000 hectares, an area slightly smaller than the Province of Davao del Norte.

FACTORS CONTROLLING THE GRANT OF MINING RIGHTS

Current mining rights applications cover approximately 12.2 million hectares or 40.65% of the country’s total land area. The general perception is that areas applied by mining companies will be automatically subjected to widespread environmental damage with resulting displacement of communities and social alteration.

It must be clarified, however, that mining applications do not necessarily mature to mining rights. The grant of mining rights is controlled by the following factors:

(1)	Qualified Person – The Mining Act and its IRR specifically state that a mining permit or contract can only be granted to a Qualified Person, meaning, one must possess, among others, proofs of financial and technical capability as well as a satisfactory environmental management and community relation track record.

Legally organized foreign-owned corporations may apply for mining permits or contracts for as long as they meet the criteria for a Qualified Person, for purposes of acquiring an Exploration Permit, FTAA or Mineral Processing Permit and for a Mineral Agreement, provided that they do not exceed the 40% cap on ownership.

Failure to comply with this expressed intent of the Act shall be a cause of denial of the mining application.

In addition, in case a Qualified Person is granted the mining permit or contract, the original contract area shall be progressively reduced through the mandated relinquishment process. The maximum area to be retained after the exploration period shall be 5,000 hectares per mining are for metallic minerals and 2,000 hectares for non-metallic minerals, except for certain non-metallic minerals such as shale and limestone, marble, granite and construction aggregates, which final mining area shall be 1,000 hectares or less depending on certain qualifications;

(2)	Land Use Priorities – Areas classified as closed to mining are automatically excluded from mining applications while applied areas in conflict with other land uses and not covered by the required area clearance are automatically excluded. Thus, the applied area is either reduced or in some cases, denied; and

(3)	Economic Feasibility – It is not automatic that a mining contractor shall proceed immediately to development and commercial operation after it has completed exploration.

Should the Mining Contractor be fortunate enough to delineate a mineral deposit during the exploration period, the Contractor must prepare and submit for approval a Mining Project Feasibility Study.

The Mining Project Feasibility Study shall consider market, financial and technical factors relevant to the project as well as the minimum expenditures for social and environmental commitments provided under the revised IRR.

Impositions for environmental protection (at least 10% of the initial capital expenditures for environment-related expenditures; at least 3% to 5% of annual direct mining and milling costs for environmental management during the life-of-the-mine and financial warranties to cover final mine rehabilitation) and social commitments (at least 1% of the annual operating costs for the development of the community and mining technology and geosciences and at least 1% of the gross annual revenues as royalty to Indigenous Peoples, if any + just compensation for surface occupants/landowners) are guarantees that the mining contractor will meet its environmental protection and enhancement and social objectives over the life-of-the-mine.

In essence, mining projects that cannot absorb the environmental and social costs of modern mining shall not be allowed to proceed.

Based on our assumptions, we projected the future extent of mineral lands to reach 1.4 million hectares or just 4.62% of the country’s total land area.

Again, it should be emphasized that only a small portion of the projected mineral lands may eventually be affected by actual mining. The size of a mining operation is largely influenced by the scale of operation, terrain/physical limitations and basic physical and social infrastructures available.

MINING AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Protection of Indigenous Peoples (IP) is guaranteed by the revised implementing rules and regulations conformity with the three requirements provided in ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: (1) establishment or maintenance of a procedure in consultation; (2) share from the benefits of development activities and (3) fair compensation for any damages they may sustain as a result of development activities.

The prior informed consent required from areas recognized or claimed as ancestral land is our way of recognizing the Indigenous People’s rights to their land. Should the IPs grant the consent and the area later warrant development, the IP shall receive their share from economic opportunities arising from mining operations trough royalties in the amount equivalent to at least 1% of the annual gross revenues. The inclusion of the IPs, together with LGU and NGO representatives in the Multi-partite Monitoring Team (MMT), ensures transparency in the monitoring of mining operations and that the appropriate remedial measures and/or proper indemnification are made.

Once the IP’s exercise their right, however, not to issue the prior informed consent, the mining company has no option but to exclude the area covered by the ancestral land from the mining application and to stop any mining activity in the area, if any.

MINING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

True to the truism that “mining cost is just a minor cost” in modern mining, the revised IRR made environmental responsibilities of a mining company as a major cost center. While much of the attention is focused on environmental incidents involving mines, tailings dams has been transformed to grazing lands, to vegetable farms or to a mini-golf course. A portion of an underground mine was also converted to an eco-tourism site. It has been done in the past and we have no reason to doubt that with technology, innovation and ingenuity, the concept of “resource multiplication”, that is, the transformation of mining disturbed areas to productive uses, will become an industry standard.
The revised IRR ensures that environmental conditions are sustained over the life of the mine.

Environmental Work Program (EnWP) for Exploration addresses any potential disturbance during the exploration stage. The Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) granted prior to the development and construction of the mine provides the basis for the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Program (EPEP), the document that details the methods and procedures the company will use in attaining its environmental protection and management objectives over the life-of-the-mine. An Annual EPEP, on the other hand, is prepared based on the EPEP to implement progressive rehabilitation measures.

The Contingent Liability and Rehabilitation Fund (CLRF) is established in each operating mine to guarantee the company’s compliance with its environmental commitments. The CLRF is divided into the Monitoring Trust Fund (MTF), which is utilized by the Multi-partite Monitoring Team (MMT) in its monitoring activities and the Rehabilitation Cash Fund (RCF), which is used to fund progressive rehabilitation activities. Meanwhile, damages to life and properties caused by mine wastes or tailings are compensated through the Mine Wastes and tailings Fund Reserve Fund (MWTRF).

The Final Mine Rehabilitation/Decommissioning Plan (FMR/DP), which shall be submitted five (5) years before expected mine closure, ensures that all disturbed areas will be restored, as near as possible to its original state or to a pre-agreed productive end-use. The Plan, which must be done in consultation with local governments and the communities, shall include financial assurances to cover the costs of rehabilitation and maintenance and monitoring over a period of ten years as well as a social plan to minimize the mine closure’s economic impact to the host and neighboring communities and to the mine employees and their dependents.

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

The mining company is mandated to spend at least 1% of the annual direct mining and milling costs for community development and the development of mining technology and geosciences. This 1% is proposed to be divided at 90% for community development and 10% for development of mining technology and geosciences.

The 90% for community development shall be managed through a Social Development and Management Program (SDMP). The SDMP is considered as the vehicle to maximize opportunity for social and economic development and facilitate the equitable distribution of benefits. Ideally, the SDMP should be utilized to provide alternative livelihood opportunities for employees, their dependents, and the neighboring communities during the life-of-the-mine. A properly managed SDMP will reduce the cost of the social plan during the final mine closure.

SHARING FROM THE NATIONAL WEALTH

The revised IRR ensures the equitable sharing of benefits among the four major stakeholders – the National and Local Governments, the Mining Contractor and the Host Communities.

Using the FTAA mode of mining tenement, a fiscal regime anchored on the principle that the Government expects real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country while the Contractor expects a reasonable return on its investments, was formulated.

In essence, the basic structure for the FTAA fiscal regime is best expressed by the equation: 

	FTAA Fiscal Contribution = Basic Share + Additional Share

The Basic Government Share corresponds to all direct taxes and fees paid y the Contractor during the term of the agreement. Direct taxes and fees are grouped in three major categories, namely:

•	Payments to National Government

-	35% Corporate Income Tax
-	2% Excise Tax on actual value of minerals produced
-	Custom duties and fees under the Customs and Tariff Code
-	10% Value Added Tax on imported equipment, goods and services
-	5% of the actual market value of the minerals produced as Royalty, in case of mineral reservations.
-	Documentary Stamp tax depending on the nature of transaction
-	Capital Gains Tax equivalent to 10-20% of the gain
-	15% Tax on interest payments to foreign loans
-	15% Tax on foreign stockholders dividends

•	Payments to Local Governments

-	Local Business Tax at a maximum of 2% of the gross sales
-	Real Property tax equivalent to 2% of fair market value of property based on an assessment level (plus 1% special education levy)
-	Registration Fees
-	Occupation Fees equivalent to 50 pesos per hectare per year
-	Community Tax – 10,500 pesos maximum per year
-	Other Local Taxes, the rate and type depend on the local government concerned

•	Payments to Other Filipinos

-	Special allowance as defined by the Mining Act and its IRR; and
-	Royalties to indigenous cultural communities, if any.
On the other hand, during periods of extra-ordinary profitability, e.g., high metal prices, the Government is entitled to a portion of such profits determined in consultation with the Contractor. This share from the profits is the Additional Government Share. This sharing is determined taking in consideration the capital investment in the project, contribution to the economy, the community, the local government, and the technical complexity of the project.

The sum of the Basic Share and the Additional Government Share is equal or greater than 50% of the Net Present Value of the Project Cash Flow. If indirect taxes and contributions, e.g., fuel tax, payroll benefits of employees, withholding taxes, social infrastructures, royalties and expenditures for development of geosciences and mining technology are included, the Government and the Filipino people will receive an effective share of 60% or better of the net present value of the total benefits from the mining project.

 The FTAA, therefore, is not a sell-out of national patrimony.

Demanding more from the company will be more detrimental than beneficial – higher taxes will force mine operators to “high-grade” the mineral deposit leading to the loss of mineral resources; not a palatable option from the conservationist point of view.

However, as a recognition of the risks assumed by the Contractor, the Fiscal Regime provides incentives during the most difficult period of the mining operations, that is, the Pre-operating Period (the exploration and the development and construction stages).

During the recovery Period, the Contractor is allowed to recover such risk capital over a period of five years from commercial operation. This is an incentive provided by the Government to account for the risks assumed by the Mining Contractor. The Contractor is exempted from paying all national government impositions but shall pay all local government taxes.

In the Post Recovery period, the Government will now receive all benefits expected from the mining project – the Basic Share and Additional Government Share, if warranted. Based on our financial models, the Government share derived from the miming project is apportioned at 48% for the National Government; 11% for the Provincial Government; 21% for the Host municipality and 21% for the Host Community/ies.

Quantitatively, our financial models showed that for a copper-gold mine operating at 25 million metric tons per year or about 80,000 metric tons per day, the benefits that will accrue to the government will be equivalent to:

Properly managed, these financial benefits will provide the boost for LGUs and the communities to establish other wealth generating livelihood opportunities to improve the quality of life of the people.

REPEALING THE MINING ACT…

Before one calls for the repeal of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, there is first the need to comprehend the global dynamics that influence the minerals industry. For a start, a thorough review of the Mining Act itself, its revised implementing rules and regulations, the FTAA Fiscal Regime and other policy initiatives on mining and related environmental laws is imperative.

The repeal of the Mining Act will…

	…..force the mining industry to revert back to Executive Order No. 278 and its implementing rules and regulation (DENR AO Nos. 57/82/63) enacted as an interim law during the time of President Aquino…..a law that failed to recognize the global nature of mining…..a law that failed to recognize the emerging environmental and social realities required of a modern mining industry;

	…..erase all policy safeguards for (1) the indigenous Peoples, being the only mining law in the world that recognized the rights of the IPs; (2) the LGUs and the communities, who will be deprived of their equitable share from the benefits of mining and (3) the Environment, wherein projects that cannot absorb the environmental and social costs of mining will not be allowed to proceed; and 

	…..result in the flight of foreign investors that possess the capital, the technology and the management skills to run world-class mining operations. Such a flight will severely damage the country’s foreign investment stature.

We do acknowledge the concerns of the people against mining. It is a legitimate expression of their concern for the wise and efficient use of their resources and the protection of the environment they live in.

Yet, it is also our belief that common perceptions on mining can be traced to the inability to understand the technical complexities of mining.

OUR BIAS TOWARD THE MINING INDUSTRY

We have been accused of being biased toward the mining industry. We are not. Our bias is toward RESPONSIBLE MINING. It is our MANDATE – as the government agency responsible for the management and administration of the country’s mineral resources, to promote and enhance responsible mineral resources development. We will defend the mining industry as long as it toes the line of Responsible Mining. However, we will not hesitate to crack the whip where principles and policies of Responsible Mining breached.

SHARING THE RESPONSIBILITY

We have always taken pride that the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced, mining legislation in the Asia-Pacific region. The law holds the distinction of being the only mining law in the world that has built-in provisions for the protection of the rights of the indigenous peoples, pre-dating the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act or IPRA. Its environmental and social provisions are comparable to, if not better than, those from other industrialized nations. It provides for a strengthened Mines and Geosciences Bureau to ensure its full enforcement on the ground.

Management of mining operations and whatever resulting social and environmental impacts, however, is a SHARED RESPONSIBILTY. A responsibility that involves the government, the industry and ALL OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, pro and anti-mining alike.

OUR CALL…..

 We cannot overemphasize the primacy of minerals to our lives and to civilization as a whole. Neither are we callous to the sentiments against mining. However, it is our belief that the basic framework towards the vision of a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable minerals industry is now in place.

Advances in mining technology has resulted in higher design standard with regard to environmental protection. There has also been progress in managing mining’s social impacts and ensuring that the communities involved receive a share in the benefits from mineral development.

However, much work remains to be done.

And proving the minerals industry’s role in economic development, social empowerment and environmental stewardship can be achieved with coordination, commitment, cooperation and consensus among stakeholders.

______________________________________________________
MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
North Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines (1100)
Tel. No. (63-2) 9209130
Fax. No. (63-2) 9201635
www.mgb.gov.ph