The Philippines, with its vast reserves of minerals like class 1 nickel, has become a key player in the global energy transition. In 2022, the country was the second-largest producer of nickel in the world, trailing only Indonesia. The value of the nickel reserves in the Philippines was estimated at PHP 238.9 billion (approximately USD 4.16 billion). This boom in mineral extraction, while beneficial for the economy, is placing the rights of Indigenous peoples at severe risk as their ancestral lands are increasingly threatened by mining activities.
The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) reported a disturbing trend in its 2023 “State of Indigenous Peoples Address.” Land and environmental conflicts within Indigenous communities have increased by 6% year-on-year, with over 70,000 additional hectares of land being affected. The LRC’s Executive Director, Efenita Taqueban, highlighted the fatal consequences of these resource conflicts. She stated, “When we talk about resource conflict, the conflicts that occur on the ground, these have mortal implications for Indigenous peoples. Their lives are really on the line.”
Mining expansion is identified as the primary driver of these conflicts. Between 2022 and 2023, an additional 223,000 hectares of land were allocated for mining projects, directly affecting 45,070 Indigenous people. This marks a 62% increase in human rights abuses compared to the previous year. Behind these statistics are tragic stories of violence, including killings, arrests, and harassment. Indigenous people are frequently subjected to “red-tagging,” where they are falsely labeled as terrorists or supporters of communist insurgencies.
A notable example of these abuses occurred in the western Palawan province, where Indigenous communities organized physical blockades, known as “people’s barricades,” to protest against a nickel mine in the town of Brooke’s Point in February 2023. Beverly Longid, the national convener for the National Alliance of Indigenous Peoples Organizations (Katribu), spoke to Dialogue Earth, explaining that the term “just minerals” has been used to justify the many mining and energy projects that adversely affect Indigenous communities. She noted that the concept of “just transition” is hard for communities to grasp because, for them, the impacts of mining remain the same regardless of whether the project is labeled as just or unjust.
Flawed Consent Process
The ancestral lands of Indigenous peoples in the Philippines are often located in areas rich in natural resources, including minerals. As of 2012, about 60% of national mining operations were taking place on these ancestral lands. Although the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) has been in place since 1997, there are significant concerns regarding its implementation and effectiveness.
Under the IPRA, Indigenous peoples have ownership rights over their ancestral lands, provided they obtain a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). This certificate allows them to approve or reject projects that affect their lands, including mining operations. However, the process of obtaining a CADT is often long and bureaucratic. For instance, the Pala’wan tribe took seven years to secure the title for their land in Mount Bulanjao, Palawan.
Longid, who is from the Bontok-Kankanaey subgroup of the Indigenous Igorot people, expressed her criticism of the IPRA, saying that the law does not adequately recognize Indigenous peoples’ rights to their land. Instead, it forces them to go through a state-imposed process to obtain legal recognition of their land ownership. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), which oversees the issuance of CADTs, has processed only 264 out of 1,000 applications, despite the fact that these certificates cover more than 15 million hectares, about half of the country’s total land area.
The process has been complicated by overlapping land titles issued under previous laws, such as the Public Land Act and the Forestry Code. According to NCIP Director Arthur Hermann, resolving these conflicts is a significant challenge, as much time is spent reconciling these conflicting land claims.
Additionally, the LRC has raised concerns about violations of the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) process. According to the IPRA, companies must obtain FPIC from Indigenous communities before beginning projects on their lands. This consent must be given freely, without coercion, and after fully disclosing the scope and intent of the project. Unfortunately, the LRC reports that FPIC is often reduced to a mere formality, with companies conducting a single meeting that fails to provide essential economic and environmental information. In some cases, coercion and bribery have been reported, such as instances where community members who oppose a project are excluded from the FPIC process. In extreme cases, the signatures of community members have been forged to falsely represent consent.
Taqueban from the LRC explained that the FPIC process is often misunderstood. She pointed out that the consultations are seen as a mere administrative step rather than a genuine effort to ensure that communities are fully informed and free from external manipulation.
A Path Forward
Despite the ongoing challenges, Indigenous communities and policy experts are not opposed to development but advocate for a model that respects their rights and interests. Longid emphasized that Indigenous peoples are willing to contribute to national development, but only if it does not lead to the destruction of their traditional ways of life. “We are Filipinos. We are part of Philippine society. We are integrated,” she said. “Indigenous peoples are more than willing to share. But it should also be a contribution that will not result in the destruction of our ways of life.”
The LRC has proposed measures to ensure that the energy transition respects Indigenous rights. Among their recommendations is the integration of a just energy transition into existing mineral management policies. One key proposal is an alternative minerals management bill that would regulate the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources while ensuring that the benefits are shared equitably among all stakeholders. The bill also advocates for the closure of certain areas to mining, particularly critical habitats, watersheds, and key biodiversity areas. Additionally, the bill calls for comprehensive environmental and social impact assessments and mitigation plans to minimize the negative effects of mining.
Several versions of this bill have been introduced since 2009, but despite repeated calls for its urgent passage, it has not yet been enacted into law. Environmental groups and civil society organizations continue to support the bill as a necessary step toward ensuring that mining and other development projects respect the rights of Indigenous communities.
Meanwhile, the NCIP has urged mining companies to be more considerate of the interests of Indigenous communities. Hermann stressed that mining companies should not treat communities as passive recipients of royalties. Instead, companies should engage in meaningful negotiations, listen to the concerns of the communities, and respect their way of life.
Conclusion
The rapid expansion of mining in the Philippines, fueled by the global demand for minerals required for the energy transition, has placed tremendous pressure on Indigenous communities. As their ancestral lands are increasingly targeted for mining operations, these communities are facing violence, exploitation, and violations of their rights. The current legal framework, including the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, is often insufficient to protect their lands and ensure their participation in decisions affecting their future.
There is still hope, however, that through continued advocacy, legislative reform, and genuine respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights, a more just and equitable path forward can be found. As the country navigates the complexities of the energy transition, it is crucial that the voices of Indigenous communities are heard and their rights are safeguarded. The challenge remains: to ensure that development does not come at the expense of the lives, cultures, and traditions of the very people who have long protected the land.
