Yes to Life no to Mining

31 Years of Insatiable Greed and Plunder, The Continuous Fight Towards People’s Sovereignty over National Patrimony

 31 Years of Insatiable Greed and Plunder, The Continuous Fight Towards People’s Sovereignty over National Patrimony

Thirty-one years after the passage of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, or Republic Act No. 7942, the Filipino people continue to confront the consequences of a policy framework that entrenched neoliberal and imperialist control over the country’s mineral wealth – an unimaginable plunder driven by the greed of Marcos Jr. regime. Enacted at a time when the state sought to attract foreign capital into high-risk, capital-intensive extractive industries, the law institutionalized mechanisms that entrench imperial take over our national patrimony. Mechanisms like the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs), allowing up to 100% foreign ownership and control of large-scale mining operations. Under the PMA ‘95, mining corporations may control up to 81,000 hectares for 25 years, renewable for another 25. They are guaranteed generous incentives like the six-year tax holidays, export tax exemptions, and income tax breaks, advantages that ripen the ground for intensive extraction and profit accumulation, allowing the convenient entry of foreign capital in the country. Yet the promised development of mining remains illusory in the country after 31 years of the implementation of PMA 1995. Mining’s contribution to national employment has remained below 1%, and government revenues from taxes and fees have been disproportionately small compared to the immense value of extracted minerals. The Philippines’ estimated mineral potential is between US$850 billion and US$1 trillion, valued at around 10 times the country’s annual GDP and 15 times its total foreign debt. Only Php 16 went to the gov’t for every 100 pesos of minerals extracted. What has prospered instead are environmental destruction and community displacement. From the 1996 Boac River disaster linked to Marcopper Mining Corporation and Placer Dome in Marinduque, widely called the “mother of all mining disasters”, to the 2012 Philex Padcal tailings spill in Benguet, and the deadly 2024 landslide in Masara, Davao de Oro involving Apex Mining Co. Inc., mining operations have repeatedly resulted in loss of life, poisoned rivers, and devastated communities. These are tragedies resulting from an extractivist regime that hungers insatiably for profit, while completely negligent to the welfare of the people and ecosystems. In recent years, the state and mining corporations have also aggressively greenwashed large-scale extraction, portraying it as indispensable to the so-called “green economy.” Government agencies and corporate actors frame expanded mining as a contribution to climate solutions, obscuring the massive ecological damage, deforestation, water contamination, and displacement of communities that accompany extraction. In reality, the push for “critical” minerals has only intensified the pressure on mineral-rich territories like the Philippines, further legitimizing the same extractivist model that has permanently damaged ecosystems and communities in the name of profit. There are also series of human rights violations that have likewise marked the industry’s expansion. Paramilitary forces, the military, and CAFGU units have been linked to harassment and abuses in mining-affected areas. Extrajudicial killings of anti-mining activists intensified when state security forces were mobilized to protect mining investments. Even more alarmingly, around 60% of mining concessions in the country overlap with ancestral lands of indigenous peoples, placing them at the forefront of dispossession and violence as they defend their collective rights. Yet people’s resistance lives on against persecution and deterioration of communities. Across the archipelago, alliances of environmental advocates, church groups, local governments, academic institutions, and grassroots communities continue to demand the repeal of the Mining Act. People across the country are leading several community resistance against destructive projects that pose imminent threat to the biodiversity and socio-economy of the community. Recently, in Nueva Vizcaya, residents of Dupax del Norte continue the legacy of the people’s struggle against encroachment of large-scale mining. They have erected people’s barricades to block destructive operations of the British-owned Woggle Corporation. Supported by environmental advocate organizations, communities have secured temporary suspensions of permits. This triumph demonstrates that organized, collective action can compel accountability. On this 31st anniversary, the call is even more dire, urgent, and militant. We have to dismantle the structural architecture of plunder, feeding off from the destruction of nature and lives in the community. We have to relentlessly fight for the rights of our peasants and indigenous peoples most affected by the wreckage of inconceivable social and environmental destruction of mining. We must continuously and tirelessly struggle to advance a development path anchored on ecological sustainability, national industrialization, and genuine national sovereignty. Pass the People’s Mining Bill that institutionalizes mining for the development of national industry complemented with sustainable ecological and community protection. Hold the Marcos Jr. regime, along with his corporate cronies, responsible for the systemic and permanent destruction and displacement in different communities of peasants, indigenous peoples, and fisherfolks. We must courageously take on different forms of struggle that forward the genuine interest of the people. The struggle continues, not only against destructive mining projects, but against the systemic forces that enable them. Junk PMA 1995! Pass the People’s Mining Bill! People and nature over profit! #phminingactibasura #marcospanagutinminingpalayasin

.

 

Absolute rejection of the United States-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals in our territories

 

On 4 February, it was announced that the governments of the United States and Mexico had agreed to work on a joint action plan on ‘critical’ minerals. Through this instrument, the Mexican government commits to taking action to ‘develop a new paradigm for preferential trade in critical minerals, backed by minimum prices and other measures’.

At REMA, we believe that this Plan deepens Mexico’s subordination to the geostrategic policy of the United States. This agreement is part of a long-standing asymmetrical relationship between the two countries and, as various analysts have pointed out, is an example of the interventionist diplomatic agreements that the United States imposes on Mexico and other countries it considers within its sphere of influence. The official document itself explains that the agreement responds to the US government’s concern to maintain its global hegemony in the face of competition from China, ensuring access to and control of strategic resources such as minerals, gas and oil.

 

This Plan is an example of the interventionist diplomatic agreements that the United States imposes on Mexico and other countries it considers within its sphere of influence, such as Australia and Canada. These agreements occur in a context of explicit threats of military interventionism, which has already been carried out recently in Iran, Venezuela and Ukraine, and has escalated in other cases such as Greenland, in addition to the United States’ active efforts to suffocate the peoples of Cuba and Gaza.

One of the central themes of our analysis in this plan is our criticism of the concept of “critical minerals”. We argue that this is a political and discursive construct that legitimises a supposed collective urgency to promote mining extractivism. The definition of these minerals is based on political rather than technical criteria: in the United States, the most recent list includes 60 minerals, while in Mexico there is not even a defined list. This ambiguity allows for the creation of an exceptional scenario that justifies the streamlining of procedures, the relaxation of regulations and the prioritisation of projects considered strategic.

The Plan establishes that both governments will identify specific mining and manufacturing projects “of mutual interest” to prioritise their financing and public policy support. We consider this point to be particularly worrying, as it may involve the deployment of the economic and political apparatus to impose priority projects over the affected communities. This will undoubtedly lead to increased dispossession, forced displacement and militarisation, formalising US interference (disguised as binational cooperation) and increasing criminalisation and violence in disputed territories.

Another important aspect is what is known as “geological transparency,” which involves the sharing of technical information between the United States Geological Survey and the Mexican Geological Survey. This would mean greater financial and technical capabilities for mining prospecting and exploration in Mexico, allowing for the expansion of the extractive model into new territories and encouraging speculative processes associated with these activities. In addition, the mention of “coordinated stockpiling of reserves” heralds the advancement of exploration work throughout the national territory.

The Plan also mentions “regulatory cooperation,” which implies greater harmonisation of the regulatory framework between Mexico and the United States to facilitate trade. It should be clear that regulatory cooperation means greater collaboration between regulators for the sole purpose of promoting trade, a demand that has been pushed for many years by transnational companies with supply chains located in two or more countries, as highlighted by researcher Stuart Trew of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The concept of “regulatory cooperation” already exists in Chapter 28 of the USMCA, but now, by applying this concept specifically to “critical minerals,” this plan jeopardises the application of the precautionary principle to protect watersheds, forests, health, and social property in the face of this extractivist onslaught.

 

In the context of the announcement of the Action Plan, it is essential to question the statements made by President C. Sheinbaum during the morning conference on 9 February, where she stated that “nothing has been signed” and that “no new mines will be opened”. The data shows a different reality: in 2025, 16 Environmental Impact Statements for mining exploration work were approved and only three were denied. At the same time, the annual report of the Mexican Mining Chamber (CAMIMEX) reports expansions and new projects in gold, silver and copper, while more than 22,000 mining concessions remain in force. These elements show that the extractive framework continues to operate with broad institutional support.

We reiterate that minerals are neither critical nor strategic in themselves. They are inputs to sustain a deeply unequal energy and industrial model that reproduces colonial structures and capital accumulation. What is truly critical is the country’s water situation, the increase in systemic violence linked to macro-criminal networks, and the strengthening of anti-rights policies.

For all these reasons, we affirm that this Plan deepens Mexico’s dependence on and expansion of extractivism, with direct consequences for the territories, common goods, and the peoples who inhabit them. Faced with this scenario, we reaffirm our defence of the hills, subsoil, rivers, and territories as an integral part of life and the exercise of our rights to self-determination.

 

REMA declara:

El 4 de febrero se anunció que los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y México acordaron
trabajar en un Plan de acción conjunta sobre minerales “críticos”. A través de este
instrumento, el gobierno mexicano se compromete a realizar acciones para “desarrollar un
nuevo paradigma para el comercio preferencial de minerales críticos, respaldado por
precios mínimos y otras medidas”.

Desde la REMA consideramos que este Plan profundiza la subordinación de México a la
política geoestratégica de Estados Unidos. Este acuerdo se inserta en una relación
asimétrica de larga data entre ambos países y, como han señalado distintos analistas, es
un ejemplo de los acuerdos diplomáticos intervencionistas que impone Estados Unidos a
México y a otros países que considera dentro de su órbita de poder. El propio documento
oficial explica que el acuerdo responde a la preocupación del gobierno estadounidense
por mantener su hegemonía global frente a la competencia con China, asegurando el
acceso y control de recursos estratégicos como minerales, gas y petróleo.

Este Plan es un ejemplo de los acuerdos diplomáticos intervencionistas que impone
Estados Unidos a México y a otros países que considera dentro de su órbita de poder,
como Australia o Canadá. Estos acuerdos ocurren en un contexto de amenaza explícita
de intervencionismo bélico, que ya ha sido llevado adelante recientemente en Irán,
Venezuela y Ucrania, y que ha llegado a escalar en otros casos como Groenlandia,
además de en medio de los esfuerzos activos de Estados Unidos para ahogar a los
pueblos de Cuba y Gaza.

Uno de los ejes centrales de nuestro análisis en este plan es la crítica al concepto de
“minerales críticos”. Sostenemos que se trata de una construcción política y discursiva
que legitima una supuesta urgencia colectiva para potenciar el extractivismo minero. La
definición de estos minerales responde a criterios políticos y no técnicos: en Estados
Unidos la lista más reciente abarca 60 minerales, mientras que en México ni siquiera
existe una lista definida. Esta ambigüedad permite construir un escenario de excepción
que justifica la agilización de trámites, la flexibilización normativa y la priorización de
proyectos considerados estratégicos.

El Plan establece que ambos gobiernos identificarán proyectos específicos de minería y
manufactura “de interés mutuo” para priorizar su financiamiento y apoyo de política
pública. Consideramos que este punto es particularmente preocupante, ya que puede
implicar el despliegue del aparato económico y político para imponer proyectos prioritarios
por encima de los pueblos afectados. Esto, con toda seguridad, se traduce en una
profundización del despojo, el desplazamiento forzado y de la militarización, formalizando
la injerencia estadounidense (disfrazada de cooperación binacional) y aumentando así
como la criminalización y la violencia en territorios en disputa.

Otro eje relevante es la llamada “transparencia geológica”, que contempla la compartición
de información técnica entre el Servicio Geológico de Estados Unidos y el Servicio
Geológico Mexicano. Esto significaría mayores capacidades financieras y técnicas para la

prospección y exploración minera en México, permitiendo la expansión del modelo
extractivo hacia nuevos territorios y fomentando procesos especulativos asociados a
estas actividades. Además, la mención de un “acopio coordinado de reservas” anuncia el
avance de trabajos de exploración a lo largo del territorio nacional.

El Plan también menciona la “cooperación regulatoria”, lo que implica una mayor
homogeneización del marco normativo entre México y Estados Unidos para facilitar el
comercio. Hay que tener claro que la cooperación regulatoria significa una mayor
colaboración entre reguladores con el único propósito de favorecer el comercio una
demanda que, desde hace muchos años, han impulsado empresas transnacionales con
cadenas de suministro emplazadas en dos o más países, tal como destaca el investigador
Stuart Trew del Centro Canadiense para Políticas Alternativas. El concepto de
“cooperación regulatoria” ya existe en el Capítulo 28 del T-MEC pero ahora, al aplicar este
concepto específicamente a los “minerales críticos”, este plan pone en riesgo la aplicación
del principio precautorio para proteger cuencas hidrográficas, bosques, la salud, y la
propiedad social ante esta embestida extractivista.

En el marco del anuncio del Plan de Acción resulta indispensable cuestionar las
declaraciones realizadas por la presidenta C. Sheinbaum durante la conferencia matutina
el 9 de febrero, en donde señaló: “no hay nada firmado” y que “no se abrirán nuevas
minas”, los datos muestran otra realidad: en 2025 se aprobaron 16 Manifestaciones de
Impacto Ambiental para trabajos de exploración minera y sólo se negaron tres.
Paralelamente, el informe anual de la Cámara Minera de México (CAMIMEX) reporta
expansiones y nuevos proyectos en oro, plata y cobre, mientras siguen vigentes más de
22 mil concesiones mineras. Estos elementos evidencian que el marco extractivo continúa
operando con amplio respaldo institucional.

Reiteramos que los minerales no son ni críticos ni estratégicos en sí mismos. Son
insumos para sostener un modelo energético e industrial profundamente desigual, que
reproduce estructuras coloniales y de acumulación de capital. Lo verdaderamente crítico
es la situación hídrica del país, el aumento de la violencia sistémica vinculada a redes de
macrocriminalidad y el fortalecimiento de políticas anti derechos.

Por todo ello afirmamos que este Plan profundiza la dependencia y la expansión del
extractivismo en México, con consecuencias directas para los territorios, los bienes
comunes y los pueblos que los habitan. Frente a este escenario, reafirmamos nuestra
defensa de los cerros, subsuelos, ríos y territorios como parte integral de la vida y del
ejercicio de nuestros derechos de autodeterminación.