LAst week, I wrote "Greenwash in the minerals sector', showing how the national minerals policy can mislead the public to believe that mining is a sustainable activity (trying to whitewash the mineral sector with 'green' paint).

In The National Minerals Policy: Sustainable Development of the Mining Industry, the ministry claims that they intend to practice conservation of mineral resources to augment the resource base. This is not just greenwash; this is hogwash!

No matter how much you conserve, you cannot augment the minerals resource base, you cannot add to or increase the amount of bauxite that is there.

Singing the same old song

What I did not mention last week is that I and other environmentalists have, on more than one occasion under the previous (anti-environmental) government, pointed out the erroneous and misleading use of terms like 'sustainable' to the staff of the mining ministry, including those driving the formation of this policy; yet they persist in using them.

Now, we have a new government (with the same old-line staff), yet they are singing the same old erroneous song as the previous government. Where is the change of course we were led to expect?

The seventh draft of the national minerals policy now in circulation is a revision of the sixth draft, which was the subject of island-wide public consultations.

The covering letter states that the document has "been amended to reflect the suggestions made by the public".

Several environmentalists attended these consultations across the island, and made many suggestions and recommendations, yet very few of them have been incorporated into the amended document.

No doubt the ministry also had consultations with the mining sector. Careful word-by-word comparison of the sixth and seventh drafts by Wendy Lee of the Northern Jamaica Conservation Association reveals that the vast majority of changes favour the mining sector.

It should be no surprise that the Govern-ment listens to industry - a source of financial campaign contributions - rather than the public, whose only contribution is votes. 'Corporate citizens' who cannot vote are paid more attention than real voting citizens. "Donkey seh the road nuh level".

For example, Section 4.3 of the sixth draft said that incentives under the proposed Minerals Industries (Encouragement) Act "will apply to the development of all minerals, except bauxite". In the seventh draft, the last two words are deleted.

And so the bauxite sector, already benefiting from the Bauxite and Alumina Industries (Special Provisions) Act and the Bauxite and Alumina Industries (Encouragement) Act, will now also benefit from the proposed Minerals Industries (Encouragement) Act.

What benefits?

The public has been told by successive governments that we must endure personal and community dislocation and profound environmental degradation because of the economic benefits from the bauxite-alumina industry. What exactly are these benefits? New players in the bauxite industry already enjoy:

A 10-year tax holiday;

No customs duties (on non-CARICOM goods) for machinery and equipment;

No GCT on goods and services connected with the project;

No withholding tax of any nature on dividends, interest or other branch profit remittances to the extent such dividends, interest or remittances are exempt in the country of domicile.

What revenue then accrues to the public purse from the bauxite sector? The much-maligned bauxite levy, you may answer.

But most companies already benefit from reductions in the levy, and in certain cases they are exempt from paying any levy at all!

Under the new minerals policy, what will be the short-, medium- and long-term benefits to Jamaica's national economy from the metallic and non-metallic minerals sector?

Most of the changes in the seventh draft reflect an increased aggressiveness in promoting the exploitation of minerals, with more incentives to be provided to commercial mining interests, which is certainly not what we heard at the public meetings.

The public called for a holistic approach to land use that focused on sustainability, landowners' rights (particularly the protection of farming rights), food security, protection of ecosystems and rural communities, and increased accountability from mining companies.

Many of us feel that these public meetings are really public relations exercises, presenting only one side of the story, and intended to brainwash the public to get support. More next week!

Peter Espeut is an environmentalist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.