Palawan’s provincial government has sparked a nationwide controversy with its decision to impose a 50-year moratorium on new mining operations, halting 77 pending applications across over 200,000 hectares of forest. Approved during a special session of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on Wednesday, March 11, 2025, the ban has drawn applause from environmentalists and sharp criticism from industry leaders, exposing a rift between local decision-making and national economic priorities.
Greenpeace Philippines hailed the move as a bold stand against ecological destruction. “The Philippines is already facing the worst impacts of the climate crisis—yet destructive industries keep fueling disasters, putting profit over people,” said Lea Guerrero, Greenpeace Philippines Country Director. She described the ban as “a crucial step in ensuring a sustainable and climate-resilient future for Palawan and the rest of the country,” urging the national government to adopt similar policies. “We urge the national government to take inspiration from Palawan’s leadership and implement stronger, long-term policies that prioritize the protection of the people and the environment over short-term economic gain,” Guerrero added.
The Philippine Nickel Industry Association (PNIA), however, slammed the moratorium as an illegal overreach. In a statement released Friday, the group argued that the ban “represents an overreach of local police power” and “lacks proper legal and regulatory basis,” reports the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The PNIA warned that the moratorium “undermines the balance between local autonomy and national oversight, which is an essential element for sustainable and equitable development.”
With six existing mines and 11 mineral agreements still active in Palawan, the industry group contends that the province’s decision threatens economic stability, sending a “damaging” signal to investors and weakening the Philippines’ standing in the global nickel market.
The ban’s supporters see it as a lifeline for Palawan’s forests and communities. “The moratorium on endorsement of new and pending applications is a good start,” said Grizelda Gerthie Mayo-Anda, Executive Director of the Environmental Legal Assistance Center and Convenor of the Save Palawan Movement. “We can save these forests and help enable Palawenos to achieve climate resilience.” Recent floods in the province, worsened by environmental degradation, bolster their case.
The PNIA, meanwhile, called the policy “drastic” and a source of “unnecessary uncertainty to the sector, undermining the industry’s consistent advocacy for predictable, stable policies that support long-term investments and competitiveness.” Instead of a blanket ban, the group proposed “enhancing the regulatory framework to promote responsible mining operations” through harmonized national and local policies, transparent investment frameworks, and strict environmental standards.
“We advocate for constructive dialogue between the government, local communities and industry players to create policies that promote both economic growth and environmental sustainability,” the PNIA added.
The clash echoes Palawan’s history of resisting outside pressures, such as the 2017 defeat of a Nickelodeon underwater theme park plan. But this time, the stakes are higher, pitting a province’s right to protect its land against a national industry that fuels infrastructure and jobs.
Is Palawan’s ban a model for local empowerment—or a defiance of national needs? The answer could reshape how the Philippines balances its resources and its future. Share your thoughts!
