In the intensifying global race for critical minerals—crucial components in electric vehicles (EVs), renewable energy (RE) technologies, advanced electronics, and other strategic industries—the Philippines stands at a pivotal juncture in this global energy transition. With abundant reserves of nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements, the country holds in its soil the keys to the 21st-century economy. Yet, without a strategic critical minerals policy, it risks squandering this opportunity, remaining a mere supplier of raw materials rather than ascending the value chain.
A mineral is considered ‘critical’ if it is vital to a country’s strategically important economic sectors. Many governments have clear lists and strategies to safeguard these resources. An alternative to the term ‘critical minerals’ is ‘transitional minerals’ which may be strategic minerals, but not critical in terms of security and the economy. Unfortunately, the Philippines has to define which minerals are considered critical or transitional, let alone a policy that would protect its own resources and ensure a stable and sustainable supply of those minerals.
Nations worldwide are aggressively securing their critical mineral supply chains. A 2025 White & Case survey shows that geopolitics and economic interests—more than climate concerns—is the driving force shaping mining and metals. For instance, China’s state-backed financial institutions have poured over $57 billion in the past two decades into resource-rich countries to tighten Beijing’s grip on critical minerals. Key examples include copper and cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru, nickel from Indonesia, and lithium from Argentina. It now controls roughly 61% of rare earth production and more than 90% of processing capacity, according to the International Energy Agency—power that Beijing has wielded to squeeze its rivals, imposing export controls on a range of critical rare earth minerals, rattling its rival the United States.
Washington has scrambled to respond, imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs and batteries, solar panels, semiconductors, and other products. It has also diversified its supply chains by forging deals far and wide—from securing a mineral deal in war-battered Ukraine to even exploring the purchase of Greenland, to brokering a peace deal between Rwanda and the DRC that could unlock lucrative mineral access to some of the world’s richest deposits of rare earths.
To diversify away from reliance on China and Russia, Canada and Germany signed an accord to deepen cooperation in securing critical mineral supply chains, increase collaboration on research and development, and co-fund new critical mineral projects that support a range of industries—from electric vehicle manufacturing to defense and aerospace.
Other nations are also acting decisively. The European Union’s Critical Raw Materials Act aims to shore up supply chains. In 2024, the EU signed a major agreement with Australia—home to some of the planet’s recoverable critical mineral deposits—to build sustainable and ethical critical mineral supply chains. Australia’s Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive sweetens the deal for investors with generous tax incentives for domestic processing.
Meanwhile, Canada has committed $3.8 billion to its Critical Minerals Strategy, emphasizing sustainability and Indigenous partnerships. The United Kingdom’s own strategy intends to position itself at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, while Brazil’s National Strategic Pro-Minerals Policy has helped it become one of the top lithium exporters. Closer to home, Malaysia even rolled out its National Advanced Materials Technology Roadmap 2021-2030 emphasizing the need to expand the downstream rare earth industry with the goal of creating a new source of wealth.
The Philippines, with its vast mineral wealth, is well-positioned to become a key player in this global landscape. Recent talks about joining the U.S.-Japan critical minerals agreement shows a clear willingness to engage more strategically. A free trade agreement with Canada focusing on critical minerals is in the works, and just this May, the Philippines signed a strategic pact with South Korea on critical minerals and EV development. And then, the EU, in partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), has announced the conduct of a scoping study to identify potential sources of critical raw materials in the Philippines. The study aims to establish a “normative framework” that integrates the best practices of both the Philippines and the EU in promoting sustainable mining and attracting European investment.
However, to truly capitalize on its resources, the Philippines must develop a comprehensive critical minerals policy that addresses supply reliability and resiliency, sustainable and responsible practices, favorable investment climate, and stable regulatory environment.
Indonesia offers a lesson the Philippines cannot afford to ignore. Jakarta’s massive nickel production caused global nickel prices to plummet. For the Philippines, that should be a cautionary tale—highlighting the need to employ price stability mechanisms when striking future trade and investment deals.
If the Philippines wants to entice serious mineral processing investors, it must do more than showcase its mineral wealth—it must build the physical and regulatory infrastructure to move projects from vision to reality. The government has already proven it can cut red tape with the Energy Virtual One-Stop Shop (EVOSS) for energy projects. A similar mechanism could clear the bottlenecks that have long frustrated investors and stalled development.
Beyond economics, critical minerals have become a matter of geopolitics. The U.S., the EU, Japan, and other major economies are racing to secure reliable supply chains that are not dependent on China. This creates a rare window of opportunity for the Philippines to position itself as a trusted and strategic partner in the global transition to clean energy and advanced technologies.
But to truly maximize its potential, the Philippines must move beyond the traditional extractive model. Exporting raw ore captures only a fraction of the value; the real gains lie in downstream industries such as refining, processing, and even component manufacturing for EVs, RE technologies, and electronics. A critical minerals policy that fosters domestic value addition will create jobs, strengthen industries, and insulate the economy from global price shocks.
While the DENR’s issuance of a DAO earlier this year outlining the guidelines for integrating the UN SDGs into the implementation of mining companies’ Social Development and Management Programs is commendable, a critical minerals policy should likewise prioritize sustainable mining practices. Such a policy must craft its own framework that adheres to—and ideally surpasses—international standards on sustainable development in mining, with the twin goals of protecting communities and safeguarding ecosystems.
The effectiveness of any policy will, in large part, depend on the level of trust it is able to build among stakeholders. Investors value regulatory clarity, while communities seek accountability and tangible benefits. Incorporating appropriate safeguards and participatory mechanisms would support the sustainability of the Philippines’ critical minerals policy.
At this pivotal moment, the Philippines cannot afford to remain without a clear roadmap. For the Philippines to claim its rightful place in the global critical minerals supply chain, the time to act—decisively and strategically—is now.
Reeno E. Febrero is senior legal officer at Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc. He is currently pursuing his Master of Laws at the University of the Philippines, with a thesis focused on sustainable mining.
