Mexico Mining: Can it Align With Sustainable Development Goals?

This article presents a critical and comprehensive discussion on the compatibility between the concept of Sustainable Development, as outlined in the 1987 Brundtland Report, and mining activities in Mexico, particularly in relation to the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a specific emphasis on SDG 2: Zero Hunger. Based on an analysis of institutional narratives, such as that of the Mexican Mining Chamber (CAMIMEX), and a dialogue that is both caustic and ironic yet constructive, the article questions the viability of mining as a tool for sustainability. It examines the associated social and environmental impacts and proposes an alternative model: a framework of community governance grounded in binding social agreements, establishing mutual responsibilities between companies and communities. The article concludes with a series of recommendations aimed at dismantling the narrative of “human-faced extractivism” and moving toward a structural transformation of the legal and political framework governing mining in the country.

In recent years, mining has been rescued from its traditional image of devastation and rebranded as a cornerstone of the new sustainable development paradigm. Phrases such as “no energy transition without mining” or “lithium is the new green oil” now appear in technical documents, institutional campaigns, and political discourse, seeking to reframe the act of drilling into the Earth as an ecological gesture. Within this context, efforts by the mining sector to portray itself as a proponent of “conscious mining” — promising compatibility with the SDGs, international certifications, and harmonious relations with local communities — are readily apparent.

However, this narrative is increasingly contested by a diversity of social, academic, and community voices, ranging from trivial to profoundly serious, which argue that mining, by its very extractive nature, conflicts with key pillars of sustainable development, such as intergenerational justice, territorial equity, and ecological sustainability. This article captures a dialogical exchange that not only critiques dominant discourses but also seeks to put forward alternatives, imagining a radically different form of mining in which communities are not marginal beneficiaries but sovereign agents of territorial development.

Mining and SDG 2: Zero Hunger

Mining activities often come into direct conflict with SDG 2 by undermining access to arable land, water resources, and local agri-food economies. Documented examples of legal struggles between communities and mining companies include protection lawsuits 393/2015 and 709/2023 before the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in which communities allege loss of effective access to their agricultural lands, legal and economic pressures, and contamination of soil and aquifers.

Reducing these conflicts to a simplistic “narcos or mines” dilemma is a rhetorical strategy that conceals a more complex reality: In many rural territories, mining and organized crime do not exclude one another but coexist — and are often intertwined — exploiting the same structural absence of the state.

Moreover, this context fosters a coerced dependence on mining as the sole source of employment and economic dynamism, thereby precarising rural livelihoods and radically transforming local agri-food systems. Rather than ensuring food security, extractivist expansion contributes to its erosion.

The State: Complicit, Absent, or Captured Actor

The portrayal of the state as a neutral actor or passive object of rescue is untenable. The Mexican state has played an active role in shaping a legal and administrative framework favorable to the mining industry: 50-year renewable concessions, subsoil rights prevailing over surface tenure, fiscal incentives, and an energy policy that subsidises electricity consumption for large companies.

Furthermore, environmental oversight has been systematically weakened: Institutions such as PROFEPA and CONAGUA lack the necessary resources to effectively monitor the impacts of large-scale extractive projects. Public participation mechanisms are largely symbolic, and consultations, when conducted, are neither binding nor autonomous. This type of “enabling state” neither protects communities nor enforces corporate accountability; indeed, it fails even in its role as guarantor of investments, behaving instead like a shameless fraudster that invokes human rights selectively to dismantle private investment, be it domestic or foreign, along with environmental protections.

From Social Licence to Binding Social Agreement

The concept of a “social licence to operate” has been widely promoted by the extractive sector as a strategy for territorial legitimization. Yet, its ambiguity serves a function: devoid of legal value, it becomes a symbolic tool for simulating consensus without redistributing power. Companies are awarded accolades for “community engagement,” even though agreements are signed under asymmetrical conditions and lack enforceability.

In light of this, this article proposes abandoning the paradigm of social licence and adopting a new framework: the binding social agreement. This instrument must recognize the community as a collective legal entity and establish a contract outlining mutual obligations and rights. Though rarely realized in practice, such agreements ought to serve as mechanisms for power redistribution and shared responsibility.

Proposal for a Community-Based Mining Governance Model

Drawing inspiration from international experiences and grassroots community processes in Latin America, a community-based mining governance model is proposed, underpinned by six key pillars:

1. Binding social agreement: A legally recognized contract between the company and the community, with mutual responsibilities, periodic review clauses, and conflict resolution mechanisms.

2. Community shareholding: Equity ownership of the project, including representation in decision-making bodies.

3. Direct redistribution of extractive rent: Channelled through publicly managed and transparently administered trusts.

4. Capacity-building at the local level: Technical education, access to independent legal counsel, and leadership development.

5. Closure plans with productive transition: Economic reconversion of the community toward sustainable post-extraction activities.

6. Transparency and civic oversight: Public information platforms, external audits, and territorial observatories.

This model aims not merely to mitigate damage but to fundamentally transform the logic of mining, reorienting it toward territorial justice and community sovereignty.

Recommendations

The discussion herein demonstrates that mining, as currently practised in Mexico, is in direct tension with the original concept of sustainable development. Reconciliation between mining and the SDGs will only be feasible if structural changes are adopted that ensure the redistribution of power, transparency, and effective participation of affected territories.

The following are recommended:

• Reform the legal framework to institutionalize binding social agreements.

• Ensure enforcement of existing regulations, including sanctions for government officials who fail to comply with deadlines and resolution criteria.

• Guarantee maximum and timely transparency in administrative procedures.

• Recognize the right of communities to veto extractive projects.

• Ensure redistribution of mining profits toward public and sustainable purposes.

• Strengthen the technical and legal capacities of communities.

• Establish permanent mechanisms for citizen oversight and accountability.

Mining cannot — and need not — be abolished by decree. However, it must be radically reimagined through democratic means and with full adherence to the rule of law. Only in this way can it cease to be a threat to territories and become an instrument of just development.