The hub is presented as a catalyst for high-value industries and economic growth. But history tells a different story. Our governments have repeatedly approved environmentally destructive mining, reclamation and infrastructure projects, eroding public trust.

We believe the hub could further expand the large-scale mining already devastating the Philippines. Processing facilities need a continuous, growing supply of minerals, so Pax Silica’s success will create greater demand for mineral extraction. The Philippines is already the world’s second-largest producer of nickel. Since New Clark City is designed to process critical minerals, this raises serious concerns about further intensification of extraction.

Water is another major concern. Communities in the USA and other countries where AI datacentres already operate have raised concerns over the large amounts of water needed to operate these facilities and the impact on local water supplies. This is particularly concerning in the Philippines, where communities are already facing water insecurity and competition over water resources.

The proposed site is not an empty space waiting for development. Communities already live in and around the area, alongside agricultural lands and a still largely green landscape. When we look at the area, we see communities, livelihoods and ecosystems, not simply land available for an industrial complex.

Those set to lose the most are Aeta Indigenous communities and farmers in Tarlac province, as well as rural communities living in or near the proposed project site. Alongside water issues, they risk losing their ancestral and agricultural lands, food security and livelihoods, while facing displacement and greater exposure to pollution-related health hazards.

Rather than advancing genuine national development, the hub reinforces a model in which the country’s wealth and strategic resources serve the interests of foreign capital and global technology industries, leaving local communities to deal with the consequences.

History has repeatedly shown that large-scale extractive and infrastructure projects driven by transnational corporations fail to prioritise the interests, rights and welfare of affected communities, instead producing environmental destruction, labour exploitation, land dispossession and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few.

Development should serve people’s needs, not foreign capital’s demands. That means pursuing a strategy based on environmental protection, food security, national industrialisation and respect for people’s rights.

The government, and specifically the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), the institution responsible for converting former military bases for development, has met concerns with greenwashing attempts. Officials have also dismissed criticism as disinformation, casting opposing organisations and individuals as uninformed.

On mining, the BCDA insists there will be no extraction, with New Clark City focused solely on higher-value mineral processing. But this distinction doesn’t take into account the reality that processing facilities still require a continuous and potentially expanding upstream supply of minerals.

Regarding water, the BCDA claims the project will not compete with community resources, since it plans to capture rainwater and convert it into purified water for the datacentres. Yet the agency has presented no hydrological studies or other technical evidence to support these claims.

The BCDA initially produced its own list of people projected to be affected in Tarlac. Following criticism, it reversed course, claiming no farmers or Aeta communities would be affected. But journalists who visited the communities the BCDA insists are unaffected have documented local farmers’ and Aeta residents’ fears and demands.

The government’s response extends beyond official channels. Coordinated online trolls have amplified the same message. For example, after we published educational materials explaining why we oppose Pax Silica, comments almost immediately appeared claiming the project would create jobs. Together with the state’s disinformation campaign, this manufactures the impression of broad public support.

Civil society is calling for the outright rejection of Pax Silica, on the principle that the country’s resources should benefit its people first. We are taking action through protests, mobilisation and public campaigns to build understanding of what the initiative entails. On 27 July, President Bongbong Marcos used his State of the Nation Address to again promote Pax Silica. Alongside it, we organised a mass protest in Manila, joined by farmers and community representatives who travelled from the affected areas to show the public, the media and the international community that we oppose the initiative. Farmers and local communities also keep up pressure on the ground.

Resistance has also taken more pointed forms. Aeta communities in Tarlac have declared a Philippine Air Force officer persona non grata, citing concerns over continued militarisation and harassment linked to the proposed project. This shows that resistance is coming directly from communities experiencing the consequences of the project and its associated militarisation.

We started by producing and sharing materials about Pax Silica, examining the government’s narrative and strategy around the initiative. We gave interviews, contributed articles to mainstream and alternative outlets and issued fact sheets and public statements. People need to understand what the initiative means for our country and for the communities directly affected, as well as its wider implications for our environment and resources.

We are also helping build Greens Against the War Machine, an alliance of environmental organisations that oppose or are critical of Pax Silica. Our organisation is open to working with other groups, in the Philippines and internationally, who want to learn more about the initiative, particularly its implications for critical minerals, which is one of our main areas of work.