I love the debates that comes out of mining sector. But most of it is actually lack of understanding of several issues. That is where the problem is.
Mining essentially involves depleting of natural resources and degradation of the environment when extracting the needed resource from the ground. The official definition will go as: mining means extracting minerals from the earth. So whatever decision one has to make about mining, it should address the depleted resources, the negative externalities of that depletion, the cost on environment (wont include this in externality), the positive externalities (such as job creation, revenue for tax collectors, etc), etc
Now a rational decision on this issue will have to weigh the costs and benefits before any decision to allow mining to take place anywhere. For Zambia and other developing countries, I think the costs and benefits should also take into account the costs of collecting that revenue in the wake of tax avoidance and tax evasion. It certainly wont pay, to include revenue which no one will ever collect!
So can we sum all the costs and then the benefits? Will any mining project pass that test? Frankly, I think mining in this country has more costs than benefits since the privatization jump on our roofs. We have seen more depletion and rarely few positive outcomes! Even Switzerland makes more tax revenue from our mines that we do. I think we are lost in the "employment" fight we don't see the real costs to this nation. If our aim was to really get the maximum benefit from mining, a lot of things would be done differently. Since that is not the aim, but employment, our aims fall short of any benefits. Let me explain.
Mining Efficiency
For this country and indeed any country to achieve mining efficiency, that is, extract the minerals at least cost and sell them at high price, we need to look at the costs of that extraction. Costs are many and include, royalties, labour, fuel, rentals, licenses, etc. A reduction in one of those elements will reduce the cost of extraction and surely makes for a good bargain.
However, the country imposes a cost on the mines through demand not to lay off workers. Hallo! We want efficiency, so the mining company would really do good in that area if they reduced the work force and instead invest in capital equipment that would extract the minerals cheaply compared with a man with a pick! Are we then saying we can do with the inefficiency in the mining sector as long as the people are employed? I have heard people say, they would rather have that since mines "cheat" in taxes. My view is different, if we need to do something, we must do it the best way we can. If we can't do that, we should as well close the mines and find something else to do. Mining companies may actually be motivated to "cheat" on the basis of balancing their books since we have bloated there work force. Now if we offer no conditions to them, we will have a better bargaining stand since all mining companies need to do is carry out an efficient operation.
My take on the mining would actually be to run them on a whole new platform that will force efficiency and productivity in the country. Many compare with Chile. This is a wrong comparison. They don't even need value addition as it is useless for them. Our case if different. We own less in the mines compared to 50% of which they own. Therefore, our aim should be to get more from these mines in form of value addition. The country will get more from the value added compared to exporting of raw minerals. If the companies want to export the raw minerals, we control it through taxes. Anyone exporting should pay export tax! Right now, there is no motivation to add value to the copper that we export. Tax revenue has also eluded the country. Meaning we are losing out on both fronts!
What Value Addition?
The value addition I talked about, still remains. It is here.
The setting up of "support industries" around the mining sector will bring in better rewards, especially if we stop the export and tax leakage in the current exports of the mining sector.
Environment Stance
There exist a principle in environment which states that: Polluter pays principle. This simply means whoever will bring about harm to the environment will have to clean it up and pay for all the costs related to that pollution.
So our position for someone to setup a mine in a lake is simple, how then will that person clean up the environment. When that issue has been clearly sorted out, we move now to the other costs, then look at the revenue one will make and address the positive externalities on that end.
But what shocks me, is people talking about the employment that will be created by the mine and ignoring the cost of that environment! We are doing it wrong, lets start from the cost aspects and only move to looking at the employment when the cleaning up of the environment has been addressed. What value is a mine employing 2000 workers and then a million die from environmental degradation? Are we really so into making jobs available that we will even jeopardize our environment to get people employed?
What are our cost - benefit analysis on this issue? Environmental issues are one thing that should come first, everything else second. What villagers are there who would cost the country's environment to be employed. What genuine revenue will come out of this.
Mining Should Not Be For Employment
Mining sector should therefore not be looked at as an employment engine. It is a resource sector whose returns should be pumped into the economy, clean up the mess it generates and ensure these returns are pumped back into high growth sectors of the economy.
The "support industries" should then be the area of focus for employment. These will employ more and will have great efficiency in the mining sector. The people will benefit more from this than imposition of employees on the mines. It is a modern world which uses modern technology, the mines are not any different. If they can't contribute to tax revenues, do we really need them to operate in this country?
