Experts from the University of the Philippines (UP) have raised questions about the economic benefits and environmental costs of Pax Silica, saying the Philippines must assess whether its participation would strengthen domestic industries or mainly supply resources and labor for foreign companies.
At an October 19 forum organized by the UP Diliman College of Science’s Science and Society Program, speakers examined the initiative’s implications for mining, water supply, biodiversity, employment, and the country’s relations with the United States and China.
“For the Philippines, participation in this initiative raises important questions,” UP Diliman College of Science associate dean Leilani Dacones said.
“What opportunities might it bring to our science and technology sectors? How might it affect our industries, research institutions, and workforce? And perhaps most importantly, who stands to benefit from these developments, and what challenges or trade-offs should we consider?”
UP School of Economics professor Cielo Magno placed Pax Silica within the competition over critical minerals, noting that the Philippines and Indonesia together account for more than 70% of global nickel production, much of which goes to China for processing.
“Of the 20 critical minerals needed for the energy transition, China also controls the processing of 19,” she added. “Against this backdrop, we can better understand the United States’ interest in the Philippines.”
Magno said contacts at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources had informed her of a memorandum of understanding under the broader Pax Silica package that would reportedly give the United States first access to Philippine mining areas. She said the memorandum had not been made public.
She warned that mineral extraction alone would not ensure economic development, citing the risk of the “resource curse,” in which resource-rich countries fail to translate their wealth into broader gains.
Magno said the government must secure fair compensation for mineral extraction, account for its social and environmental costs, and invest mining revenues in livelihoods that can continue after operations end.
“The Philippine government must also have a comprehensive sustainable development plan for mining communities. Mining is highly mechanized and technical, so it does not necessarily create a significant number of jobs. Mining revenues should therefore be used to support other industries independent of mining, ensuring that communities have alternative sources of livelihood when mining operations end,” Magno added.
Water demand and land use were among the concerns raised by Jelaine Gan of the UP Diliman Institute of Biology.
“The proposed site for Pax Silica covers approximately 3.3 times the area of UP Diliman,” she said. “Allocating land for one purpose means displacing other uses. This land is used for agriculture by Indigenous communities.”
Gan said the proposed site includes agricultural fields, forest patches, and built-up areas. She called for studies of its species and ecosystems, warning that land that appears barren may still support important biodiversity.
Citing figures from the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, Gan said the proposed development would require 65 million to 90 million liters of water daily — equivalent to about 26 to 36 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
She compared the projected demand with the residential water needs of either Angeles City or Baguio City.
Gan said proponents planned to draw surface water from the Bangot, O’Donnell, and Abacan rivers instead of groundwater, potentially requiring dams or reservoirs. She also raised concerns about the river system becoming a pathway for waste.
UP political science professor Herman Joseph Kraft examined the initiative in the context of US-China competition, saying the Philippines must protect its interests amid pressure to align with either power.
He said the country’s role in manufacturing and critical mineral processing connects Pax Silica to that rivalry, while its alliance with the United States and disputes with China in the West Philippine Sea complicate its choices.
Giovanni Tapang of the UP Diliman National Institute of Physics questioned whether the initiative would build Philippine industrial capacity or primarily meet foreign production needs.
“Industrialization is not about having industries or factories in the country. Having factories here or producing electronic chips does not necessarily mean that we produce the electronic products we need,” he said.
“These factories may be located here, but their production is not necessarily intended for us. That has been the story of our electronics industry for the past 50 years. These products are largely made for other countries rather than being made available and affordable to Filipinos.”
Tapang also questioned the quality of jobs that additional electronics investments would create, citing concerns about wages, working conditions, and workers’ ability to organize.
He said the country should assess what it would gain from providing minerals, land, labor, electricity, and water, including whether the investments would create opportunities for Filipino engineers, scientists, and other skilled workers.
