By Fernando “Ronnie” S. Penarroyo
The Philippines prides itself as a gay-friendly nation where consensual homosexual relations, homosexuality, and transgenderism are not illegal. The country’s legislative history reached a milestone when Geraldine Roman from Bataan was elected as the first transwoman member of Congress. Meanwhile, seventy-three countries still criminalize consensual same sex relationships while only a few legally recognize the identity of transpeople and protect the rights of intersex people.
The mining industry in the Philippines has been traditionally dominated by men with its macho culture and homophobic tendencies. In the past, even women were banned from entering underground mines or working in offshore drilling rigs. I remember my days in the university when geology majors were considered campus “barakos” (studs) and effeminate students were often silently scorned if not treated as outcasts. Since we spent a lot of our academic time doing research in the field, who would want to share a tent or bunk with someone whose sexual orientation was rather ambiguous? Those with gender identity issues were thus discouraged to work in the mine sites and if there were a few, they were prevented from coming out because the industry’s culture discouraged complainants from speaking out as they may be subjected to further abuse by co-workers. For many employees, coming out may be a very affirming experience, but for those working in the mining industry, it can be really difficult.
On numerous occasions when I have been invited as resource speaker before geology and mining engineering majors in various universities all over the country, I noticed through the years that the number of students who belong to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (“LGBTI” in this article but collectively referred to as “LGBTQIAP+”) community is increasing. I often wonder if there will be a place for them in the resources industry or will they end up working in call centers and customer services. When these post-millennials join the resources industry workforce, will they have enough legal protection against discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity?
Background on LGBTI Rights
Significant progress in LGBTI rights have been achieved on account of legal reforms and transformation in social attitudes despite setbacks and reversals in some countries which opted to adhere to strict religious fundamentalism. In 2000, the United Nations launched the UN Global Compact, the world’s largest corporate responsibility initiative, to encourage companies to respect universal principles and contribute to a more sustainable and inclusive global economy. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011, are the global standards for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity. The UN Guiding Principles do not constitute an international instrument that creates legal obligations for companies; the corporate responsibility to respect is a norm of expected conduct based on existing international law and conventions.
In September 2017, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights published a guide on tackling discrimination against LGBTI as set out in “Tackling Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, & Intersex People: Standard of Conduct for Business.” Under the guide, companies have a responsibility to respect international human rights standards including the rights of LGBTI people, regardless of the company size, structure, sector, or location.
The standards offer practical guidance to companies on how to respect and support the rights of LGBTI people in the workplace, marketplace and community. The standards were developed in partnership with the Institute for Human Rights and Business, and built on the outcome of a series of regional consultations held in 2016 and 2017 in Mumbai, New York, Kampala and Brussels. They were designed to support companies in reviewing existing policies and practices, and establishing new ones to respect and promote the human rights of LGBTI people. They were also intended to support rights-affirming interactions between companies and a wide range of stakeholders from staff to customers, suppliers, shareholders, communities, governments, lawmakers, and trade unions.
The Five Standards
At All Times
1 RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS. All businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights — including the rights of LGBTI people — in their operations and business relationships.
In the Workplace
2 ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION. Employees and other people with whom the business engages are entitled to freedom from discrimination. Businesses should ensure that there is no discrimination in their recruitment, employment, working conditions, benefits, respect for privacy, or treatment of harassment.
3 PROVIDE SUPPORT. Businesses are expected to provide a positive, affirmative environment within their organization so that LGBTI employees can work with dignity and without stigma. This standard requires businesses to go beyond equal benefits and take steps to ensure inclusion, including addressing the specific workplace needs of LGBTI people.
In the Marketplace
4 PREVENT OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. Businesses should ensure that they do not discriminate against LGBTI suppliers or distributors, or against LGBTI customers in accessing the company’s products and/or services. In their business relationships, businesses should also ensure that business partners do not discriminate.
In the Community
5 ACT IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE. Businesses are encouraged to use their leverage to contribute to stopping human rights abuses in the countries in which they operate. In doing so, they should consult closely with local communities and organizations to identify what constructive approaches businesses can take in contexts where legal frameworks and existing practices violate the human rights of LGBTI people. Such steps can include public advocacy, collective action, social dialogue, financial, and in-kind support for organizations advancing LGBTI rights and challenging the validity or implementation of abusive government actions.
LGBTI Rights in the Philippines
Article II Section 11 of the Constitution declares an existing state policy to value the dignity of every human person and to guarantee full respect for human rights. However, there is no comprehensive anti-discrimination law to date or, code of ethics or legitimate guidelines to protect the rights of LGBTI persons though there are occasional ordinances and policies at the local level.
While the Labor Code of the Philippines (1974) mandates that it is the duty of the State to afford “protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers” (Article 3) and declares it to be “unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex,” (Article 135), there is no clear reference to LGBTI rights.
Philippine laws define sex as being biologically male or female and the Supreme Court, in the absence of contrary legal definitions, follows the construction of sex as such. Republic Act (“RA”) No. 9048, “The Clerical Error Law of 2001”, as amended by RA 10172, “An Act Further Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct Clerical or Typographical Errors in the Day and Month in the Date of Birth or Sex of a Person Appearing in the Civil Registrar Without Need of a Judicial Order”, prohibits transsexual persons to change their first name and sex on their birth certificates, and strictly provides that:
No petition for correction of erroneous entry concerning the sex of a person shall be entertained ………… except if the petition is accompanied by a certification issued by an accredited government physician attesting to the fact that the petitioner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant.
In Republic vs. Cagandahan (G.R. No. 166676, 12 September 2008), the Supreme Court however decided in favor of changing the name and sex of an intersex person on the claims that he had Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, which caused him to manifest female biological characteristics. The SC held that:
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
The Court nevertheless denied transgender persons from legally changing their name and sex by virtue of RA 9048 Section 2 where “no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner”, when it ruled that “a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow.”
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (“SOGIE”) Equality Bill
An anti-discrimination bill is currently being deliberated in Congress to address LGBTI rights. The SOGIE Equality Bill is intended to prevent various economic and public accommodation-related acts of discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. The current versions of the bill are sponsored by Kaka Bag-ao, Geraldine Roman, and Tom Villarin in the House of Representatives, and Risa Hontiveros in the Senate.
The version in the House of Representative (H.B. 4982) passed its final reading on 20 September 2017. On the other hand, the the Senate version (S.B.N. 1271) is still under interpolation with Senate President Vicente Sotto III, and Senators Manny Pacquiao and Joel Villanueva, opposing it on religious grounds.
The current draft includes, among others, seven (7) prohibited acts that refer to discriminative processes against the LGBTI in employment or in the labor market:
1. inclusion of SOGIE, or its disclosure in the criteria for hiring, promotion, transfer, designation, re-assignment, dismissal, performance review, training, incentives, benefits or allowances, privileges, and other terms or conditions of employment;
2. evoking or refusing the accreditation, recognition, or registration to organize in the workplace;
3. publishing information that intends to “out” or reveal the SOGIE of a person without their consent;
4. engaging in public speech that is meant to shame, insult, or normalize discrimination against LGBTIs which intimidates them;
5. subjecting persons or groups of persons to harassment in the form of unwanted conduct, or patterns of conduct, or series of acts which annoys, bullies, demeans, offends, threatens, intimidates, or creates a distressing environment for the LGBTI which is motivated by the offended party’s SOGIE, which may manifest in the form of assault, stalking, derogatory comments, lewd propositions, and may be conducted in various mediums, including but not limited to visual representation, broadcast communication, communication through mail or any telecommunication device, or through the internet;
6. subjecting any person to gender profiling, degrading investigatory searches including recording or analyzing a person to make a generalization about their SOGIE; and
7. subjecting a person to analogous acts that impairs their enjoyment, or recognition of their rights and freedoms.
However, the bill has been criticized for not clearly stating how it plans to address issues regarding benefits that heterosexual people enjoy, as well as the issue of being called for hazardous tasks, or tasks beyond official office hours. The bill also fails to address or recognize the structures of heteronormativity that assumes that the LGBTI, unlike heterosexual employees, do not have families, or partners that equally deserve their time and attention. The bill does not clearly encourage public or private organizations to allot benefits that the LGBTI may also want to claim such as parental leaves for those who have legally, or taken responsibility for other younger relatives and act as their parents, or domestic partner benefits such as insurance, and the transfer of benefits of an employee upon death to their partners.
The sponsors mentioned that the bill will not cover same-sex marriage. However, social protection is linked to marriage equality and civil partnerships, because it is through legally recognizing same-sex relationships that LGBTI workers and their partners and children become entitled to medical care, pensions, adoption rights, and parental leave and child benefits on the same terms as heterosexual couples. The bill is also silent on the the rights of the children of LGBTI persons as these children continue to experience discrimination, social stigmatization, and a general climate of intolerance and negative public attitudes. In addition, access to health services provided through workplaces also presents an obstacle for many LBGTI workers as, due to stigma, many refrain from accessing needed and critical prevention, treatment and support services.
The difficulty also lies in how discriminated workers access legal redress as the process may entail costs in the form of economic loss from the prolonged legal procedure. Even where legal protection is in place, many LGBTI workers still face considerable discrimination and harassment, leading many to conceal their sexual orientation or transfer to industries with a more tolerant working environment. Nonetheless, the passing of anti-discrimination legislation against LGBTI people in the workplace can influence the public toward greater tolerance, and support from both workers’ and employers’ organizations will lead to an effective implementation of the law.
LGBTI in Philippine Labor Market
In 2014 the UNDP and USAID came out with a report, “Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippines Country Report, A Participatory Review and Analysis of the Legal and Social Environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Persons and Civil Society”, which contained a compilation and presentation of studies and documents from the Philippine National LGBTI Community dialogue held in Manila on June 2013. The report reviewed the legal and social environment that the LGBTIs face, which was discussed by fifty (50) LGBTI organizations from around the country regarding eight themes which included education, health, employment, family affairs, community, religion, media, and politics. The report noted that because of the absence of any statistics, the extent of employment related-SOGIE discrimination was hidden, and government agencies in charge of issues regarding SOGIE discrimination did not report on LGBTI discrimination. The report also mentioned how discrimination in the labor market can occur during the process of hiring, assigning wages, granting promotions and benefits, as well as with regard to retention. Dismissals also occurred based on a person’s SOGIE as companies were unwilling to destroy their reputation by hiring LGBTIs who act and present themselves according to their SOGIE.
Participants of the dialogue also reported how LGBTIs were hired in order to be abused or taken advantage of because of their unable to legally marry which leads to less benefits costs for the company in the absence of maternity or paternity leaves. LGBTI employees were also forced to take graveyard shifts or overtime work as they have no families to go home to, as well as assigning stereotypical jobs because of their gender identity. Sexual harassment on the workplace was another issue that the LGBTIs face because of their SOGIE.
To deal with issues with regards to LGBTI employment, the participants of the dialogue created a list of recommendations as follows: (1) pushing for legislation focus in on LGBTI people in the workplace; (2) auditing existing employment related policies in relation to LGBTI issues; (3) working with existing government projects to include LGBTI people such as SOGIE inclusion in poverty reduction strategies; (4) provide for psychosocial and paralegal support to the LGBTI in the workplace; (5) strengthening LGBTIs by forming an LGBTI group, or labor union; and (6) pushing for SOGIE sensitivity trainings.
In another study done by Patricia Angela Luzano Enriquez, “How Discrimination Happens - Being LGBT and the Experience of Discrimination in Access to Employment, and the Labour Market in the Philippines” (2017), the research paper noted that twenty-five percent (25%) of respondents have experienced harassment from their employers or superior officers, thirty-three percent (33%) have experienced harassment from co-workers, and sixty percent (60%) have been the subject of slurs and jokes in the workplace.
Prior to the publication of Enriquez’s paper, research on SOGIE-based discrimination and related incidents in the work setting were usually qualitative in the form of case studies and in-depth interviews compiled by advocacy and human rights organizations, which monitored and documented these incidents while providing legal aid, counseling, and other services to victims.
The first ever “Philippine Corporate SOGIE Diversity and Inclusiveness (CSDI) Index”, a study conducted by the Philippine LGBT Chamber of Commerce and research firm Cogencia Consulting, Inc., and supported by the Netherlands Embassy in Manila, surveyed one hundred (100) companies on their anti-discrimination and equal opportunity employment policies. The study revealed that only seventeen percent (17%) of the respondents — all foreign headquartered companies in the business process outsourcing sector — have anti-discrimination policies explicitly referencing measures to counteract gender discrimination. These policies refer to explicitly prohibiting specific actions such as misgendering, “outing” (publicizing an employee’s SOGIE without their consent), and making use of slurs against LGBTQIAP+ employees. Moreover, only ten (10) out of the seventeen (17) companies have a structure for tracking SOGIE inclusiveness, and only six have actually conducted educational discussions or SOGIE trainings. Eleven (11) out of the seventeen (17) companies explicitly use the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” in their anti-discrimination policies, and only three (3) companies have policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. More than half of the companies surveyed have no plans of creating any SOGIE-based anti-discrimination policies.
Definition of Terms
SOGIE – stands for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. Sexual orientation is the direction of emotional, sexual attraction, or conduct toward people of the same sex (homosexual orientation) or towards people of both sexes (bisexual orientation), or towards people of the opposite sex (heterosexual orientation), or to the absence of sexual attraction (asexual orientation). Gender Identity, on the other hand, refers to the personal sense of identity as characterized, among others, by lifestyle, manner of clothing, inclinations, and behavior in relation to masculine or feminine conventions. Gender expression are the various ways a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, communication or speech pattern, or body characteristics.
LGBTQIAP+ – the collective of persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, pansexual, and the plus (+) stands to incorporate other marginalized and minority sexuality/gender identities.
Heteronormativity – of, relating to, or based on the attitude that heterosexuality is the only normal and natural expression of sexuality.
Misgendering – referring to someone (especially a transgender person) using a word, usually a pronoun or form of address that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.
Pinkwashing – using a variety of marketing and political strategies to promote brands or products by appealing to LGBTQIAP+-friendliness, in order to be perceived as progressive, modern and tolerant.
SOGIE-based Discrimination – refers to any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference which is based on any ground such as sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, access to, enjoyment, or exercise by all persons on an equal footing of all rights and freedoms.
Equal employment opportunity – policies that help ensure that people are hired, retained and promoted on the basis of their ability to perform a job, rather than discriminated against on the basis of factors such as race, color, age, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran status, religion, marital status, or mental or physical disability.
LGBTI in the Mining Industry
The Human Rights Campaign (“HCR”) annually compiles and updates its Corporate Equality Index (“CEI”), a list of companies meeting criteria identifying them as LGBTI-inclusive. The index ranks companies based on a number of indicators, such as access to benefits for same-sex partners, transgender inclusive health insurance, existence of resource groups and diversity councils, and positive external relationships with the LGBTI community, among others. The coveted distinction of “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality” reflects true inclusion of the transgender workforce, from non-discrimination protections, to inclusive benefits and diversity practices, to respectful gender transition guidelines, allowing employees to self-identity based on gender identity, and engaging the broader transgender community. Previous CEI showed that the mining industry lagged behind other male-dominated industries, such as oil and gas, aerospace and defense, and automotive. It even lagged professional sports, if measured by the media coverage of well-known athletes announcing themselves as gay or lesbian. In the 2018 CEI, Alcoa Corp. and Newmont Mining Corp. qualified under Mining and Metals, while Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, and Shell Oil Co. qualified under Oil and Gas.
The mining and metals industry is one of the worst in terms of engagement on LGBTI issues, according to Deena Fidas, Director of the Workplace Equality Program at HRC. One of the reasons the industry is doing so poorly is attributed to mining companies’ lack of interaction with the public.
In Australia, LGBTI mineworkers participating in a study felt that because of their sexual orientation and gender identity they couldn’t relate to their heterosexual counterparts at the workplace. Fear of discrimination and prejudice was a common issue among the sampled group of participants with most claiming to have experienced or witnessed acts of racism, discrimination and prejudice either directly at them or towards others like them, thus reducing their desire to socialize with other employees while on-site. One individual in particular, found that many of the younger and newer LGBTI employees entering into fly-in, fly-out employment struggle to adjust to the attitude and behavior exhibited by those around them and as a result end up leaving. This was commonly attributed to the work environment which fostered a group mentality that lead to most LGBTI participating in the study to perceive the mining industry as being backwards and homophobic. People from LGBTI backgrounds were in a regular state of fear each day due to discrimination thus, socialization was kept at a minimal and mainly professional level to avoid confrontation and discrimination.
The Business Case for Recognizing LGBTI Rights
To combat stereotypes and prejudices against LGBTI workers, many forward-thinking workplaces are implementing diversity policies, usually as part of a framework to promote equality and diversity. While primarily a matter of workers’ rights, such an approach also makes business sense. This awareness makes sense from a business perspective because laws are constantly changing, which puts companies at risk of costly legal liabilities, as in the case of a gay coal miner who sued and entered into a settlement with Spartan Mining Co., a subsidiary of Massey Energy Co., alleging the company’s management didn’t protect him from abusive co-workers.
Mining companies are also likely to see their talent pools shrink the longer they ignore LGBTI issues. Prejudice on account of sexual orientation and gender identity, can impede the recruitment or promotion of the best candidate for the job. When employers pass over talented individuals based on characteristics with no bearing or relevance for the job, such as their sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics, businesses are left with a sub-optimal workforce, diminishing their ability to deliver. Discrimination forces otherwise qualified LGBTI employees to quit their jobs, creating unnecessary turnover-related costs and loss of talent. Discrimination and prejudice in the workplace impair productivity, contribute to absenteeism, and undercut motivation, entrepreneurship, and company loyalty. LGBTI people are unlikely to apply for jobs in a hostile industry, and so are their parents, friends and allies.
In fact, the LGBTI community was a useful ally of the mining industry during the United Kingdom Miners’ Strike in 1984, which was known as one of the bitterest industrial disputes in UK history. To support the miners, many activist groups were formed to aid in the strike efforts, one of which was the “Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners”, a London-based activist group who formed a relationship with the mining community in Wales’ Dulais Valley.
Moreover, a diverse workforce brings with it different ideas and ways of doing things that can propel innovation and appeal to additional markets. An analysis by the Harvard Business Review (2014) also showed that companies with a high level of diversity perform better.
Employees at more diverse companies in the US were forty-five percent (45%) more likely to report that their firm’s market share grew over the previous year and seventy percent (70%) more likely to report that the firm had entered a new market. A Credit Suisse study (2014) also showed that companies that embraced LBGTI employees outperformed in average return on equity, cash flow return on investment, and an increase in profit.
Discrimination, including against LGBTI people, affects productivity and undermines social and economic development, with negative consequences for both companies and communities. It also leads to loss of market share. In a study done by the Harvard Business Review (2016), diversity and inclusion is associated with business success.
The CEI shows that the majority of Fortune 500 companies offer extensive protections and equal benefits for LGBTI employees. It’s no surprise that many CEI top-scoring businesses are also top-performing businesses. They know that creating inclusive workplaces and communities where their employees can thrive is an investment in their own competitive edge. That’s why LGBTI-inclusive workplace policies are becoming the norm in the U.S., and having an impact around the globe. Today, more than ninety percent (90%) of CEI-rated businesses have embraced both sexual orientation and gender identity employment protections for their U.S. and global operations.
Conclusion
Labor rights recognition of LGBTI persons is now becoming the norm as many countries are now adopting anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is also clear that countries with strong laws and policies promoting equality for LGBTI workers, and companies that implement such laws and policies fare better, which provide a business and economic case for inclusion and diversity. An inclusive, diverse, and non-discriminatory industry would not be hard put to find allies from the LGBTI community especially for a much-maligned and misunderstood sector like mining.
Fernando “Ronnie” S. Penarroyo specializes in Energy and Resources Law, Project Finance and Business Development. He may be contacted at fspenarroyo@gmail.com for any matters or inquiries in relation to the Philippine resources industry. Feel free to follow Atty. Penarroyo on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-s-penarroyo-2b8a7312/)
References:
Alicias, Maria Dolores, The Socially-Excluded Groups in the Philippines: A Context Analysis for the Voice Program, January 2017, https://knowledge.hivos.org/sites/default/files/voice-phl-baseline-report-2017_0.pdf
Bahtic, Mirsad, “FIFO Employment and its Impact on LGBT FIFO Workers and Partners”, Curtin University, http://www.aomevents.com/media/files/AIRAANZ%2016/55.pdf
Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippines Country Report, A Participatory Review and Analysis of the Legal and Social Environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Persons and Civil Society, USAID UNDP, 2014, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1861/2014%20UNDP-USAID%20Philippines%20LGBT%20Country%20Report%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Berger, Eric and Doillet, Nicole, “What’s the effect of pro- LGBT policies on stock Price?”, Harvard Business Review, July 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/07/whats-the-effect-ofpro-lgbt-policies-on-stock-price.
Corporate Equality Index 2019: Rating Workplaces on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Equality, Human Rights Campaign, https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/CEI-2019-FullReport.pdf?_ga=2.182396199.1824982299.1557286736-994957363.1553496100
Enriquez, Patricia Angela Luzano, “How Discrimination Happens Being LGBT and the Experience of Discrimination in Access to Employment, and the Labour Market in the Philippines”, Social Policy for Development, 15 December 2017, Retrieved from the Erasmus University Thesis Repository website: https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/41669/Enriquez-Patricia-Angela-Luzano-.pdf
Gaynor, Carla Elizabeth, “Affect, Coalitional Politics, and Pride: Imagining Activism through Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and the United Kingdom Miners’ Strike of 1984-5”, Syracuse University, January 2017, https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=thesis
ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, International Labor Organization, 10 June 2008, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/genericdocument/wcms_371208.pdf.
Kwentong Bebot: Lived Experiences of Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgender Women in the Philippines, Rainbow Rights Project, https://www.outrightinternational.org/sites/default/files/PhilippinesCC.pdf
Philippine Corporate SOGIE Diversity & Inclusiveness Index 2018, A project of the Philippine LGBT Chamber of Commerce with research undertaken by Cogencia Consulting Inc., Supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, http://lgbtph.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/LGBTChamber-CSDIindex2018.pdf
Renders, Ashley, “Homophobic Culture Permeates Mining Industry”, The Corporate Knights, 06 February 2015, https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/mining/lgbt-employees-14232150/
Rock, David and Grant, Heidi, “Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter,” Harvard Business Review, November 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter.
Tackling Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, & Intersex People: Standards of Conduct for Business, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, September 2017, https://www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/UN-Standards-of-Conduct.pdf
“United Nations Reports,” The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, accessed August 2, 2017, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Discrimination/Pages/LGBTUNReports.aspx.
Vara, Vauhini, “It’s Still Hard to Come Out at Work”, The New Yorker, 31 October 2014, https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/still-hard-come-work
By Patricia A. O. Bunye
I have written frequently about the journey of our “Solar Lolas”, seven Aeta women who trained at the Barefoot College in Tilonia, India under the “Tanging Tanglaw: Turning IP Grandmothers into Solar Engineers” project of Diwata-Women in Resource Development, Inc. and its project partners, the Land Rover Club of the Philippines and the Philippine Mine Safety and Environment Association.
Five years after we first launched this project in 2014, we remain as excited and committed as we see the Solar Lolas making great strides.
At the Barefoot College, where rheir training was made possible by the support of the Government of India through its Indian Technical and Economic Program, they learned how to assemble, repair and maintain solar panels for installation in their respective communities in Bamban, Tarlac and Gala, Zambales.
The first batch trained from September 2014 to March 2015, while the second batch trained from April to September 2018.
The first installation of solar panels in Bamban took place in 2016, with the installation in Gala following soon after. Rural Electrification Workshops (REW) where the Solar Lolas do their work, and which serve as community activity centers, have also been constructed. During typhoons, these REW have served as emergency shelters as well.
In each community, “Lupong Solar”, or committees composed of 7 members
(3 IP chieftains, 2 Solar Lolas, a lupon secretary and a collector) have been organized.
The Lupong Solar is tasked with managing the funds collected from the users of the solar panels for future use when the panels would need to be repaired or replaced. The Solar Lolas who undertake the installation, maintenance and repair of these panels are also paid a modest stipend from these funds.
One major milestone is that the Lupong Solar of Bamban has opened, with the assistance of Diwata, its own bank account with Chinabank’s Bamban Branch, in which they are now depositing their monthly collections. The whole process of opening their accounts took more than half a day, but it was an accomplishment that the Solar Lolas can be proud of.
The Tanging Tanglaw Project also receives tremendous support from FWD Insurance which has designed a Financial Sustainability Training Program for Solar Lolas.
The first formal training session, which was facilitated by trainors from Bayan Academy, was held on 04 December 2018 at Diwata’s training room at the Clark Skills and Training Center (formerly known as the “Clark Polytechnic College”).
[Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement with the Bases Conversion Development Authority and the Clark Development Corporation, the Tanging Tanglaw Project is allowed the use of a training room formally known as the “BCDA Group Women’s Center” and a storage facility for its solar equipment.
One activity during the training session was to construct a model community by using pictures, drawings and cut outs.
Although the participants were divided into different groups, their envisioned model communities contained the same features: water, schools and concrete homes.
In this regard, Diwata has been looking into how it may assist the Bamban community in improving its water supply. Volunteers from the UP National Institute of Geological Sciences have conducted the necessary studies, but the actual funding and implementation of the water project will have to be deferred.
Although the training session was conducted informally, a number of more sensitive or serious concerns were elicited from the discussions, including the participants’ thoughts on family, government and even discrimination.
They also expressed the desire to implement culturally appropriate conservation and development programs.
The discussions were a good starting point for further engagement with them, particularly on short, medium and long term developmental interventions.
To make the program more meaningful and impactful, there is a need to calibrate their expectations versus the actual programs that can be delivered.
Moving forward, we will have to focus on the need for livelihood projects for the communities. Currently, majority of the community members are farmers. They produce root crops, vegetables and raise poultry. Other sources of income come from charcoal production and wild animal hunting. Other tribe members also work in the lowlands as construction workers.
While Diwata has been engaged with these communities for five years now, there is still so much to learn about them, particularly their dynamics and cultural norms.
It is a continuing lesson in being open and patient, and most importantly, not imposing our ways on them.
It never ceases to amaze me how far our Solar Lolas have come and how they have been transformed by the Tanging Tanglaw Project. It will certainly be exciting to accompany them further on this journey to financial self sufficiency.
Patricia A. O. Bunye is a senior partner at Cruz Marcelo & Tenefrancia and head of its mining and energy practice. She is also President of Diwata-Women in Resource Development, Inc. Questions and comments are welcome at po.bunye@cruzmarcelo.com.
The Malampaya Deepwater Gas-to-Power project (“Malampaya”) located in Northwest Palawan, employs deepwater technology to draw natural gas that fuels three gas-fired power plants and provides 30% of Luzon's power generation requirements. Operating under Service Contract (“SC”) No. 39, the project is a joint undertaking by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. on behalf of joint venture partners Chevron Malampaya LLC and the Philippine National Oil Corporation Exploration Corporation.
Malampaya delivers through six (6) Gas Sales and Purchase Agreements and fuels 2,700 MW of power stations as baseload plants and an additional 500+ MW operating as mid-merit and peaking plants.
It produces an average of 380 million standard cubic feet per day. Data from the DOE indicated that given the present production level and continuous decrease in reservoir pressure, drop in supply is expected by 2022. Recoverable reserves at the end of field life is 3.08 to 3.29 trillion cubic feet. SC 39 will expire in 2024 with no certainty in an extension and while it may have enough gas, this may not be sufficient to last beyond five years. This comes as domestic electricity consumption is likely to reach 50 million kilowatts in 2040.
The Philippines in 2017 produced half its power from coal, a quarter from renewable energy and 22% from natural gas. It is imperative then that the country urgently finds a replacement through new petroleum discoveries once the Malampaya gas field is depleted.
Liquified Natural Gas
There are currently no sufficient remaining resources from the Malampaya field or other potential upstream developments to justify new natural gas infrastructure development. The only reliable source of new gas would be imported liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) ensuring supply security and sustainability. As there are no existing infrastructure for importing LNG, the Philippines cannot access the gas market for industrial, commercial, and transportation. In anticipation of the Malampaya field depletion, the government is pursuing LNG projects and several foreign companies in partnership with domestic entities have committed investments in LNG importation facilities.
Leading the pack is Energy World Corporation (“EWC”), which reported that the DOE has issued to affiliate, Energy World Gas Operations Philippines, Inc. a permit to construct, own and operate an LNG import terminal and re-gasification facility in Pagbilao Grande island in Quezon province. EWC said the permit would enable the completion date for the first tank of the LNG hub to be aligned to the commercial operation date of the associated 650 MW power plant and the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines switchyard expansion, and the construction of the second tank. The 650 MW plant has been recognized as the anchor off-taker of the LNG project which consists of two 130,000 bcm LNG tanks, a dedicated jetty and marine infrastructure as well as re-gasification and other ancillary facilities. Fitch Solutions earlier reported that the start up of LNG import terminal has been delayed due to difficulty in obtaining access to existing local transmission infrastructure, most of which is dominated by coal-fired power generators.
The state-owned Philippine National Oil Company (“PNOC”) is developing a USD 600 million facility to be used to receive, store, re-gasify and distribute LNG. PNOC announced that it will start its tendering process for its LNG import facility. PNOC will be assuming minority stake in the project – as referenced on the joint venture rules set forth by the National Economic and Development Authority, in which the company can assume equity of not more than 50-percent. The technology preference will be a floating storage re-gasification unit and its capacity will be initially at 3.0 million tons per annum. PNOC has requested the DOE to declare the project as an Energy Project of National Significance under Executive Order (“EO”) No. 30.
Meanwhile, the Philippines has become a new front in China and Japan's infrastructure rivalry as companies from both countries bid to build the country's first LNG terminal. Both Tokyo Gas and the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp. (“CNOOC”) have partnered with domestic companies.
FGEN LNG Corp, a wholly-owned unit of First Gen Corp. of the Lopez conglomerate, signed a Joint Development Agreement with Tokyo Gas to build LNG terminals. The project will be located in Batangas Province, where First Gen operates four (4) gas-fired power plants that have a total capacity of 2,000 megawatts. The plan calls for building a terminal that will re-gasify and supply 3 to 5 million tons of LNG imports annually to the power facilities. The project is expected to cost more than $700 million, with First Gen taking an 80% stake in the operating company. FGEN recently filed with the DOE a notice to proceed with the construction of its proposed Batangas LNG terminal project in the First Gen Clean Energy Complex in Batangas City. The Japan Bank for International Cooperation is likely to fund the Tokyo Gas project if it is approved. It would be the first Japanese-built LNG terminal overseas, a core part of Japan's effort to boost infrastructure exports.
On the other hand, CNOOC, a pioneer of China's LNG industry having built its country's first terminal in 2006, formed a consortium with Phoenix Petroleum Philippines and submitted a proposal for an LNG facility on November 2018. Phoenix Petroleum recently announced that the DOE granted Tanglawan Philippines LNG Inc. the notice to proceed to build the facility. Tanglawan plans to break ground by 2019 and aims to start commercial operations by 2023. The CNOOC consortium is thought to have the political edge since Phoenix Petroleum is owned by Dennis Uy who is perceived to be close to President Rodrigo Duterte.
Petroleum Geopolitics in the South China Sea
Due to the geologic fact that most of the Philippines’ most prospective petroleum acreage lie in Northwest Palawan and the disputed waters in the South China Sea, improving bilateral relations with China remains key for the Philippines to improve its hydrocarbon reserves and production growth outlook.
According to The Diplomat, China’s assertion of sovereignty over the disputed areas and entering into joint oil and gas exploration with other claimant states in the latter’s exclusive economic zones somewhat legitimizes China’s nine-dash line claim. China is adopting a carrot and stick approach in addressing this diplomatic issue. On one hand, Vietnam was threatened with force over its unilateral exploration activities in waters claimed by China. Conversely, offers of joint exploration with Brunei and the Philippines, which opted for pragmatism and seem willing to skirt contentious sovereignty issues, are framed as partnership with promises of technical support, capital, and wider investment.
Prof. Jay Batongbacal, a maritime law expert postulates that to make any joint exploration deal work, the Philippines must overcome two major legal problems: 1) internationally, how to justify its acceptance that China contingently shares the petroleum resources within its continental shelf after an international arbitration award clearly declared that no plausible claim exists; and (2) domestically, how to accommodate any petroleum development not under its sole jurisdiction, control, and supervision but rather on a shared, co-equal basis with another state.
MOU Between the Philippines and China
In pursuit of an acceptable legal framework, the Philippines signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with China against the backdrop of brewing energy security concerns, years of negligible offshore exploration, declining upstream investment, and depleting resources in the Malampaya gas field.
The MOU on oil and gas development in the West Philippine Sea signed during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Manila, creates a body that will study how the two countries can pursue joint exploration and development. The MOU does not mean the immediate conduct of joint exploration or joint development of marine resources. However, it paves the way for the crafting of a program on how such joint ventures can happen in the future.
Department of Foreign Affairs (“DFA”) Secretary Teodoro Locsin, Jr. described the MOU as a "non-legally binding framework.” As to the geographic coverage of the framework, Locsin states that the agreement is designed to "govern an area once that area has been agreed upon according to the framework.”
Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the leading advocate of Philippine rights in the West Philippine Sea, believes that the MOU allows only “cooperation in oil and gas activities” and is not violative of the Constitution. Carpio also assumed that the service contracts to be entered by CNOOC will exactly follow the model service contract of the DOE where the natural resources covered by the contract belong to the Philippines and the contractor must comply with Philippine laws, rules, and regulations. If such regulations are followed, CNOOC would be merely a subcontractor of the Philippine service contractor or an equity holder of the Philippine service contractor. “Clearly, under the signed MOU, there is compliance with the Philippine Constitution and there is no waiver of Philippine sovereign rights under the arbitral ruling,” said Carpio.
The real test according to Carpio will be if the “cooperation agreements” to be finalized in twelve months, will involve service contracts in which Philippine law will govern the oil and gas activities with China. The answer lies with the working group and intergovernmental committee formed by the MOU composed of officials from the DFA, Chinese Foreign Ministry, DOE, and Chinese Energy Ministry, which will work out a program of cooperation that could lead to joint exploration.
Unlocking the Petroleum Potential of the Disputed Areas
Following these developments, the DOE has indicated that it is recommending to the DFA the lifting of the force majeure imposed in 2014 on Service Contract 72 in Recto Bank (Reed Bank) in response to the request of PXP Energy Corp./Forum Energy.
SC 72’s Sampaguita Gas Field holds substantial volume of potential gas reserves, according to PXP, citing verified data from seismic surveys originally conducted in 2011. “The interpretation of these surveys was carried out by Weatherford Petroleum Consultants in 2012. The report indicated the Sampaguita Gas Field to contain contingent resources of 2.6 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas in place,” the company said. “The 2D seismic data were reprocessed in 2013 and were subsequently interpreted, aided by gravity-magnetics data by Fugro (2012) and Cosine Ltd. (2015). In 2015, Arex Energy produced a report on the north bank area and estimated prospective resources to be 3.1 trillion cubic feet.”
PXP cautioned however, that the development of SC 72 must commence not later than 2027 as it would take at least six years from start to first gas. The contractor is committed to spend at least $80 to $100 million to fully appraise the Sampaguita gas field and other identified prospects within its contract area. The Philippines began exploring the area in 1970 and discovered natural gas in 1976. U.K.-based Forum Energy acquired the concession in 2005 and became its operator. PXP holds a 78.98 percent interest in Forum Energy, which in turn has a 70 percent stake in SC 72.
In October 2018, PXP announced that Dennison Holdings, another company owned by Dennis Uy, would subscribe to 340,000,000 PXP shares bringing its stake to 14.78% of PXP after the transaction. PXP, which is also negotiating with CNOOC for another potential joint exploration in the South China Sea, will use the proceeds from the share sale to fund its exploration activities and other oil assets within the Philippines. Manuel V. Pangilinan, Chair of PXP remarked that the company is "interested to participate" in Dennis Uy's Tanglawan LNG project with CNOOC.
The US Energy Information Administration (2013) estimates the region around the Spratly Islands to have virtually no proved or probable oil reserves. Industry sources suggest less than 100 billion cubic feet in currently economically-viable natural gas reserves exist in surrounding fields. However, the Spratly Island territory may contain significant deposits of undiscovered hydrocarbons. US Geological Survey assessments estimate anywhere between 0.8 and 5.4 (mean 2.5) billion barrels of oil and between 7.6 and 55.1 (mean 25.5) trillion cubic feet of natural gas in undiscovered resources.
Expiring Coal Operating Contracts
Compounding the Malampaya depletion are expiring coal operating contracts (“COC“) under Presidential Decree No. 972 known as “Promulgating an Act to Promote an Accelerated Exploration, Development, Exploitation, Production of Coal” (1976), that currently are producing and with existing proven reserves lasting beyond expiration. The fifty-year term limit for contracts involving coal exploration and production is enshrined in the Constitution.
The Philippine Conventional Energy Contracting Program (“PCECP”) for coal established under DOE Department Circular (“DC”) No. 2017-09-0010 mandates the issuance of new COCs over these “open” areas upon expiration of the 50-year term. Under the current guidelines, the COC contractors will be required to prematurely cease production operations, relinquish the COC area to be qualified for re-application and/or nomination, and hope that they will be awarded with new COCs over their previously-held contract area. However, the COC contractors if they have to undergo the present PCECP process, do not have the certainty of getting the COC awarded to them. This will result in the premature cessation of continued profitable production operations.
Some COC contractors have existing proven reserves lasting beyond the expiration of their COCs, and from a technical and economic perspective, they recognize the feasibility and the potential need to continue and extend operations of their COCs beyond the 50-year term limit. The extended period of operation on these COCs will allow continued coal production and maximum utilization of existing production assets and facilities giving rise to uninterrupted revenue to both COC contractors and government. Further, since the present COC contractors have a good understanding of the geological conditions and mining processes involved in their operations, these proprietary information will generate additional reserves and potential resources as determined from advance exploration, a clear advantage over a new COC contractor.
The cessation in production operations will certainly result in premature mine abandonment and rehabilitation as there will be no subsisting contract with the government that will allow COC contractors to continue its operations. While the COC contractors are undergoing the process set by present guidelines, they will be hesitant in allocating funds and resources for the care and maintenance of idle facilities without commercial confidence that there will be an award of a new contract over the same COC area.
Consequently, for areas with plan of developments that will exceed the 50-year term limit, aggressive production strategies within the remaining term of the COC will need to be adopted to ensure the recoupment of investment costs, as opposed to a deliberate and well-planned production operations strategy to better manage coal reserves that would ultimately yield a fully optimized coal production.
More importantly, coal mines are major suppliers of downstream power facilities. Off-taking power plants need stability of supply from coal mines. Off-takers will not enter into long-term fuel supply agreements from COC contractors whose COCs are expiring. Also, in the absence of stable coal supply agreements, project and loan financing of new power plants are difficult to obtain. Coal mines are potential energy projects of national significance under EO 30 in light of the expected depletion of the Malampaya natural gas field.
Nuclear Energy Option
Nuclear energy can also be a viable alternative power source as a substitute for Malampaya with the proper legal and regulatory framework in place. In January of this year, the House of Representatives has approved on third and final reading a bill that provides for a comprehensive regulatory framework in harnessing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Consolidating eight related administrative proposals, House Bill No. 8733 provides for the creation of the Philippine Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“PNRC”) as an independent central nuclear regulatory body. The measure aims among others to harness the peaceful and beneficial uses of nuclear energy in power generation establishing a legal and regulatory framework for the regulation and control of the peaceful uses of nuclear resources; manage radioactive waste; and establish a legal and regulatory framework to prevent, detect, and respond to unauthorized activities involving nuclear materials. PNRC will ensure consistency with the nation’s obligations under relevant international instruments and modernize the nuclear civil liability and compensation regime in line with internationally-accepted standards.
Among PNRC’s other functions are to: (a) issue regulations on financial capability of operators to cover liability for nuclear damage; (b) inspect, assess, and monitor activities to ensure compliance; (c) coordinate with other agencies on health and safety, environmental protection, security, and transportation of nuclear and related dangerous goods; and (d) act as the national authority on nuclear safety, security, and regulatory matters relative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. PNRC will also establish a Nuclear Waste Management Fund and set aside a portion of the payment for the electricity generated from the nuclear energy use which shall only be utilized for the safe disposal of nuclear waste, to include site research, transport, and final geological disposal.
PNRC shall be headed by a Commissioner, appointed by the President and shall be assisted by four Deputy Commissioners and an Executive Director who will assist them in the discharge of executive, administrative and planning functions of the body. PNRC shall likewise have an Advisory Board chaired by the Department of Science and Technology Secretary, with the Secretary of the Department of Health as vice chair, and the Secretaries of the Departments of Energy, of Environment and Natural Resources, of National Defense, of Trade and Industry, and of Agriculture as members, as well as some five members from the academe or non-government organizations. All powers, duties, records, files, and assets pertaining to nuclear and radioactive materials and facilities of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute shall be transferred to PNRC.
Geothermal Energy
Another viable alternative is putting on stream the untapped geothermal fields in the country. Recently the Philippines has dropped down to number three in the global ranking of geothermal energy producers. Based on the report of Climate Policy Initiative (2015), 45% of all renewable energy projects in Asia are either marginally bankable or not bankable at all due in part, to the lengthy process of securing required permits, licences and land access agreements. Another issue is grid connectivity. The amount of effort required for all the different aspects of the process means it can take years to achieve a bankable solution. Geothermal development’s high costs of field development, coupled with the high risks associated with resource exploration and drilling, pose a significant barrier to private sector financing.
Despite the ambitious deployment targets set by the DOE that recognize the potential of geothermal to contribute to the energy mix, there is a need to balance the need to reduce private sector risks and incentivize investment while minimizing costs to the public sector. Needless to say, streamlining the permit process by government regulators will have an impact on geothermal development, as shorter project periods would reduce uncertainty for policy and market dynamics when modeling economic returns. Geothermal projects are characterized by significant upfront capital investment for exploration, well drilling, and the installation of plant and equipment. But once the geothermal projects are placed in commercial operation the fuel source is secure for the tens of years of expected lifetime with a steady revenue stream.
Investment Opportunities and Challenges
Investment opportunities abound in the power sector as there is a need to supply the natural gas requirement of the existing gas-fired plants when the Malampaya field shuts down. According to the Philippine Energy Plan prepared by the DOE, the country will need 43,765 MW by 2040; 14,500 MW will be for mid-merit and 4,000 MW for peaking. Renewable energy capacity is poised to increase from its 2010 level of 5,000 MW to 2030 level of 15,000 MW and due to its intermittent nature, natural gas-fired power plants can complement when these plants will not be running. Additional potential demand for LNG will come from off-grid or missionary islands in replacement of existing diesel-fired power plants. LNG will primarily be consumed in the power sector, but will soon cover non-power applications such as in the industrial processes, transportation, commercial and residential sectors.
More incentives should be given to upstream natural gas exploration so as to have a viable and stable replacement to the Malampaya gas field and enhance the economic feasibility of marginal deposits. While the backbone of the upstream natural gas industry is now in place, it was brought about by a lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework to guide natural gas industry operations in the Philippines. This gap was addressed through contractual agreements in service contracts and ad hoc arrangements between the regulators and service contractors.
The Philippines does not have a separate Natural Gas Act that establishes administrative authority and accountability for the gas sector in a single agency. Although the DOE has legislative authority to promulgate regulations, broader issues regarding access and pricing have not gone beyond expressions of policy intent. The DOE has addressed issues affecting Malampaya through amendments or interpretation of service contracts. As a result, gas sector policy is largely driven by upstream considerations according to issues on which the service contractors have sought clarification as amendments to the original contract.
In reality, the present regulatory regime for gas exploration and development is seen to limit the competitiveness of gas to replace oil products except for high cost products such as liquefied petroleum gas and diesel in industry and even residential electricity. This may not necessarily apply to other lower cost gas field developments than Malampaya, which has a deepwater occurrence. Royalty and taxes account for about half of the gas price. Reducing these components will transfer the benefits of developing natural gas directly from the government to the consumers through lower electricity prices. Increased use of natural gas will, in turn, provide economic benefits through foreign exchange savings from foregone oil importation and reduced environmental impact of the country’s overall energy balance.
There is an urgent need for more energy sources with the depletion of the Malampaya field. Unless the government acts with dispatch, the power situation does not look good as the import facilities for LNG to replace the indigenous gas must be operational by 2024. Fortunately, Philippine energy regulators have taken a technology-neutral stand on possible solutions to the country’s growing demand for energy by looking at all available options.
Investments in energy infrastructure will always be driven by the combination of a strong energy supply imperative, increasingly liberalized energy sector, ambitious capacity targets and a relatively stable off-take mechanism. Petroleum exploration and development resources particularly in the Northwest Palawan basin and disputed areas of the West Philippine Sea are fraught with technical operational complexities, cost enormous sums of money, and certainly dictated by externalities arising from the country’s relation with China. The two countries’ cooperation has taken a broader energy partnership narrative in light of the present administration’s more conciliatory stance toward China.
Batongbacal, Jay, Philippine-ChinaJoint Development Talks Still at an Impasse, Despite Green Light, 13 April 2018, https://amti.csis.org/philippine-china-joint-development-impasse/
DOE Now Amenable to Lifting Reed Bank Oil Exploration Ban, 04 December 2018, https://www.doe.gov.ph/energist/doe-now-amenable-lifting-reed-bank-oil-exploration-ban
Endo, Jun; Tabeta, Shunsuke; Sugiura, Yuta, Philippines’ First LNG terminal Sought by China and Japan, Nikkei Asian Review, 18 December 2018, https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Philippines-first-LNG-terminal-sought-by-China-and-Japan
Jacob, Don Honor, Development Plans in the Emerging Downstream Natural Gas Industry, Department of Energy, Prepared for the E-POWER MO! Communicating Efficiency Across Energy Sector, 24 April 2018, https://www.doe.gov.ph/e-power-mo-communicating-efficiency-across-energy-sector-baguio-city
Kuo, Mercy A., The Geopolitics of Oil and Gas in the South China Sea, Insights from Eufracia Taylor and Hugo Brennan of Risk Consultancy Verisk Maplecroft, The Diplomat, 12 December 2018, https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/the-geopolitics-of-oil-and-gas-in-the-south-china-sea/
Philippines Oil and Gas Report, Fitch Solutions, 01 January 2018
Ranada, Pia, Oil Deal with China May Be Solution to Sea Dispute – Carpio, Rappler, 07 December 2018, https://www.rappler.com/nation/218431-carpio-says-oil-deal-with-china-may-be-solution-west-philippine-sea-dispute
Ranada, Pia, PH-China Deal on Oil, Gas Dev't Creates Body to Study Joint Exploration, 21 November 2018, https://www.rappler.com/nation/217185-philippines-china-deal-oil-gas-development-creates-body-study-joint-exploration
Rosario, Ben, House OKs on Third and Final Reading Bill on Use and Regulation of Nuclear Energy, Manila Bulletin, 18 January 2019, https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/01/18/house-oks-on-third-and-final-reading-bill-on-use-and-regulation-of-nuclear-energy/
South China Sea - International - Analysis; U.S. Energy Information Administration, 07 February 2013, https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/regions-topics.php?RegionTopicID=SCS
Valerio Micale; Padraig Oliver, Lessons on the Role of Public Finance in Deploying
Geothermal Energy in Developing Countries, Climate Policy Initiatives, August 2015, https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/lessons-role-public-finance-deploying-geothermal-energy-developing-countries/
Velasco, M. M., PNOC Kicks Off Tender Process for $600-M LNG Terminal, Manila Bulletin, 10 September 2018, https://business.mb.com.ph/2018/09/10/pnoc-kicks-off-tender-process-for-600-m-lng-terminal/
For the second year in a row, I had the privilege of participating in the Women in Mining Day at Mining Investment Asia, which was held on 26- 28 March 2018 in Singapore.
This year, I moderated the panel which focused on what should be done to attract more women to mining as a genderless industry.
The members of my panel were: (1) Tim Duffy, the President Director and Managing Director of PT Agincourt Resources; (2) Dr Gaomai Trench, Acting Assistant Director and Senior Manager for Mineral Promotion of the Department of Mines, Government of Western Australia; (3) Jade Devenish, Director and Managing Director of Geomysore Services India; and (4) Kash Sirinanda, a mining futurist, mathematician, engineer and a “serial entrepreneur”.
Gender parity is a goal for the mining industry considering that several studies have shown that, by improving women’s participation in the labor force, the world economy could add US$12 trillion in growth over the next 10 years.
Corollary to this, companies with more female directors tend to outperform those with less.
Fortune 500 companies with three or more women as directors had an average return on equity of 15.3% for the five years ended 2008 as compared to 10.5% for companies with no female board members.
Gender diversity is also 5th among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (“SDG”) adopted by the United Nations in 2015.
Since gender diversity underpins the other 16 SDGs, it is by achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment that we, in turn, hope to achieve justice and inclusion, economies that work for all, and sustaining our shared environment now and for future generations.
Notwithstanding this, based on the World Economic Forum’s 10th Global Gender Gap Report in 2016, at the current rate of change, it will still take 170 years to achieve gender parity.
The panel identified several ways to address the current gap, including, but not limited to: (1) helping women acquire the education and develop the skills to encourage them to go into science and technology jobs; (2) mentoring/providing good role models; and (3) “blind” recruitment and hiring the person with the right skills for the job.
Jade Devenish opined that, even having a proper dialogue about the subject of gender parity is difficult since many people remain uncomfortable talking about it.
According to her, we must realize that, although men and women are both equally capable, they are also very different in terms of their skills and attributes, and necessarily have different roles.
One obvious difference is that women bear children and, in many societies, are still expected to be primarily responsible for child-rearing.
In this regard, the panel acknowledged that mining companies must institute policies, particularly for women who work onsite and who need to be away from their families, which recognize and respect the role of women in the home, while ensuring that the same policies do not discriminate against men.
Among these policies, according to Kash Sirinanda, would be allowing flexible shift hours for women to allow them to come to work and still do other things.
Among the objectives for improving gender diversity in the industry is to have a bigger pool of talent to draw upon and benefit from the unique qualities and attributes that women bring to the table.
The panel agreed that women are typically a lot more empathetic, which gives women in leadership roles the ability, from a strategic point of view, to see many sides of the same situation.
According to Jade Devenish, because women have a natural ability to put themselves in other people’s shoes, this helps with better decision making in terms of understanding a collective solution.
Tim Duffy shared that, based on his own experience, in more senior roles where supervision and management are involved, women are more participatory and more collaborative, whereas men by nature tend to be “more directive and a bit more controlling.”
He has also observed that women pay greater attention to detail.
He also gave the example of women truck drivers, who unlike their male counterparts who would “have the macho-testosterone cowboy attitude and treat the gear disrespectfully,” would be more concerned about conserving company resources and maintaining the trucks properly.
Gaomai Trench expressed that the very fact that women and men are different by nature, even in terms of teamwork and group decision, dictates that a healthy organization should have room for different points of view.
The panel likewise agreed that gender diversity does not only entail increasing the number of women in mining, but also enabling them to advance through the ranks.
Tim Duffy explained that it is critical that anyone promoted to leadership positions, whether men or women, should be followed up, mentored, and encouraged so that management would know how they’re progressing and provide the required support.
Nevertheless, while there are many studies about how the general performance of a company increases with the number of women on their boards, the panel was not keen on the idea of setting minimum percentages of women on boards.
Since the companies themselves are different, i.e.
large, small, publicly-listed non-profit, Tim Duffy says that minimum percentages would be aspirational, but would be difficult to implement.
Jade Devenish concurs that the focus should not be on numbers, but always making informed decisions about filling positions, whether or the board or operations, with the people who have the right skills set.
Gaomai Trench seconded this and warned about the possibility of discriminating against men as the goal would always be the select the best people for the job.
The problem, says Tim Duffy, is who determines the criteria for “the best.”
In his experience, if the person recruiting for the job is male, the “best person for the job” would be a male, owing to the recruiter’s reference point.
He says the challenge is to keep challenging people to constantly ask “why,” and it is in this constant challenging and questioning that old opinions or biases would fall away.
It has been most interesting keeping this conversation on gender diversity running for two years in a row, and I look forward to seeing how the discussion evolves in the years to come.
Patricia A. O. Bunye is a senior partner at Cruz Marcelo & Tenefrancia and head of its mining and energy practice. She is also President of Diwata-Women in Resource Development, Inc.
Questions and comments are welcome at po.bunye@cruzmarcelo.com.
Follow on LinkedIn:
Philippine Resources Journal
Be the "First" to get our exclusive Digital Magazine & Weekly Newsletter.
