There, 24 countries reacted to the fact that the main decision – the Mutirão decision – omitted any direct reference to fossil fuels, reflecting opposition from several producer countries and persistent divisions among negotiating blocs. In response, these countries issued the Belém Declaration on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, calling for coordinated and collective action among states to expedite the phase-out of fossil fuels and to anchor climate action in science-based and rights-based approaches.

Meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement and fulfilling States’ obligations to protect the environment – including through measures addressing fossil fuel production, licensing and subsidies – will require unprecedented international cooperation to ensure that no country or community is left behind. According the organisers, the conference was guided by a set of principles centred on action, scientific evidence and inclusive participation. It was conceived as a space for governments and stakeholders already committed to advancing a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, prioritising implementation and practical solutions rather than further diagnosis or persuasion.

A Climate Conference Focused on Fossil Fuels

The conference was also structured around three thematic pillars: overcoming economic dependence on fossil fuels, including fiscal dependence, energy security and economic diversification; transforming both supply and demand, through measures such as phasing out key demand drivers, managing exploration and extraction licensing, planning for the closure of fossil fuel infrastructure and redirecting subsidies towards clean energy investment; and advancing international cooperation and multilateralism to close governance and implementation gaps and address barriers in international law and finance that constrain the transition.

Unlike many previous climate summits, which often address multiple agenda items across mitigation, adaptation and finance, this event was singularly focused on fossil fuels. It aimed to convene governments, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, workers, youth, academia and private actors to co-design viable policies and roadmaps for moving beyond fossil energy.

This focus is critical because fossil fuels remain the single largest driver of global greenhouse gas emissions. Without targeted strategies to reduce both their production and use, limiting warming to 1.5°C is increasingly out of reach. Government projections indicate that planned fossil fuel production would exceed levels consistent with the Paris Agreement by more than 120% by 2030, and by 2050 output could be around 4.5 times higher than what is compatible with a 1.5°C pathway. These projections highlight the urgency of coordinated global action to phase out coal, oil and gas.

Implications for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

One of the central aims of the conference was to convene a multi-stakeholder space bringing together governments, experts, civil society, and Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples to exchange perspectives on pathways for a just transition. The conference was explicitly designed as a forum for dialogue and agenda-setting, where proposals—including the possible creation of a global expert panel to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels—were put forward, though not formally adopted.. While this inclusive framing acknowledged Indigenous Peoples’ role and created some opportunities for their participation and visibility, it did not in itself establish concrete safeguards, decision-making authority, or accountability mechanisms to ensure that Indigenous rights are upheld in the transition process.

For example, Indigenous Peoples were recognised in the conference’s opening ceremony. Before the president, members of the Arhuaco Indigenous community from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta—who have a long history of protecting their ancestral territories from external development—opened the event with a traditional harmonisation ritual, a spiritual ceremony conducted in their language and accompanied by ancestral instruments.

A number of themes relevant to Indigenous Peoples were raised, including the need for meaningful participation in shaping transition strategies, recognition of Indigenous knowledge, and concerns about the socioeconomic impacts.

A number of themes relevant to Indigenous Peoples were raised, including the need for meaningful participation in shaping transition strategies, recognition of Indigenous knowledge, and concerns about the socioeconomic impacts.

In parallel, Indigenous delegations from the Amazon and other regions arrived at the conference explicitly to press for stronger action, reflecting long-standing frustration with the lack of meaningful commitments under global climate processes and calling for a rights-based transition that addresses the root causes of the crisis. However, these elements remained at the level of advocacy and political pressure, rather than commitments endorsed by states.

Rather than adopting negotiated outcomes, the Conference functioned primarily as a political and agenda-setting space that “will not yield binding agreements”. Within this context, a number of themes relevant to Indigenous Peoples were raised—particularly through Indigenous interventions—including the need for meaningful participation in shaping transition strategies, the importance of grounding energy transitions in human rights and justice frameworks, recognition of Indigenous knowledge and leadership, and concerns about the socioeconomic impacts of fossil fuel phase-out in affected territories. Indigenous representatives also stressed the importance of being included in any future efforts to define global pathways for ending fossil fuel extraction.

Conference Opportunities and Expectations

Indigenous representatives called on the Conference to explicitly reject the reproduction of extractive violence through “green” mining and to address the structural barriers to justice.Indigenous Peoples from the seven socio-cultural regions presented a consolidated position structured around the conference’s three pillars. Their proposals emphasise full respect for the right to self-determination and FPIC; legal protection of their territories, lands and waters; an end to both old and emerging forms of extractivism, including “green” mining and geoengineering; direct, accessible and sustained climate finance for Indigenous-led just transition strategies; and recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems and governance as foundational to climate action.

They further called for these standards and proposals to be explicitly reflected in the Conference’s final report, including minimum safeguards to ensure meaningful participation with decision-making power, protection for Indigenous defenders, traceability of transition-related investments, and guarantees for Indigenous energy security and sovereignty.

Participating countries agreed to develop national “roadmaps” to guide the transition away from oil, gas and coal, signalling a move from broad commitments to more operational planning.

Participating countries agreed to develop national “roadmaps” to guide the transition away from oil, gas and coal, signalling a move from broad commitments to more operational planning.

The conference signalled a partial shift in framing, with Indigenous Peoples acknowledged in the co-host “takeaways” document as participants in the process and, in some instances, as relevant actors in areas such as access to finance and community-level energy solutions. However, this recognition remains limited and largely instrumental: Indigenous Peoples are referenced alongside a broad range of stakeholders, with only cursory attention to their specific rights and roles. Notably, the document stops short of embedding core principles such as self-determination, FPIC, or the protection of Indigenous territories and governance systems as foundational to the transition. As a result, while the language gestures toward inclusion, it does not yet reflect a rights-based approach that positions Indigenous Peoples as central decision-makers in shaping equitable transition pathways.

Participating countries agreed to develop national “roadmaps” to guide the transition away from oil, gas and coal, signalling a move from broad commitments to more operational planning. Key outcomes included the establishment of three dedicated workstreams—on roadmaps, macroeconomic and financial dependencies, and producer–consumer alignment—alongside the launch of an international scientific panel to support evidence-based policymaking. The conference placed particular emphasis on the need to address the structural drivers of fossil fuel dependence, including fiscal constraints, debt burdens and asymmetries in the global financial architecture, underscoring that the transition requires far-reaching economic transformation rather than sectoral change alone.

Looking Ahead

While no binding agreements were adopted, the First International Conference on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels convened more than 50 countries in a shared effort and helped reframe the global conversation towards concrete next steps, including subsidy reform, financial restructuring and strengthened international cooperation. Crucially, it underscored that the central challenge is no longer whether to phase out fossil fuels, but how to do so in ways that are coordinated, economically viable and grounded in justice — particularly for Indigenous Peoples and other frontline communities whose lands and livelihoods are most directly at stake.

The conference opened a potential new political space in global climate governance, placing fossil fuel phase-out at the centre of international discussion and foregrounding questions of justice, debt and development. Yet, as the cases presented make clear, political momentum alone is insufficient without structural accountability.

Indigenous Peoples were influential in shaping the tone and framing of the event, helping shift the discourse toward territorial justice, the limits of carbon markets, and the risks of “green extractivism”. Nevertheless, their influence remains uneven: they were not structurally embedded in decision-making processes, and no binding commitments emerged to safeguard their rights.

The post A Just Future Beyond Fossil Fuels appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

The scramble for the so-called transition minerals, including lithium, cobalt, copper, and nickel, often labelled as critical to the clean energy transition, is driving a global push for more mining. The World Bank forecasts a 500 % increase in demand for these minerals by 2050; the International Energy Agency estimates increases of 40 % for copper and Rare Earth Elements (REEs), 60-70 % for nickel and cobalt and almost 90% for lithium by 2040.

The reality is that more than 54 % of the global reserves for these energy transition minerals lie on or near Indigenous lands. Framing certain minerals as “critical” allows governments to classify mining as a matter of national security or economic emergency, granting companies the right to operate on Indigenous territories without respecting their right to Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). In Latin America – in Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina- nearly 60 % of lithium projects are located on Indigenous Peoples’ territories. These operations are advancing under fast-tracked legal frameworks that bypass strong environmental assessments. Also, as Indigenous Peoples have made clear at a recent Andean Summit, the projects violate Indigenous Peoples’ right to FPIC, endanger their access to water, and threaten their cultures and traditional livelihoods.

Indigenous Principles for a Just Transition

The Latin American reality is not an exception. Across the globe, energy transition projects continue to advance without ensuring respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights. At the Indigenous Peoples Summit on Just Transition in Geneva, nearly 100 Indigenous leaders from all seven socio-cultural regions of the world agreed on a first-ever document to define what a just energy transition is from an Indigenous perspective to ensure the transition is fair and equitable.

Indigenous Peoples are not calling for minor reforms to existing frameworks.  What they demand is that their rights be respected across the full spectrum of Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, as outlined by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The outcome document from the Geneva Summit, “The Indigenous Peoples’ Principles and Protocols for a Just Transition”, presents a foundation rooted in ancestral knowledge, legal traditions, and relationships of care and responsibility with the natural world.

At a time when the dominant climate discourse prioritises competitiveness, security, and industrial growth, Indigenous Peoples are reminding the world that the real response to the polycrisis crisis is not dominance but justice.

Indigenous Peoples are reminding the world that the real response to the polycrisis crisis is not dominance but justice.

These protocols reject extractivism as a starting point. They outline a shift from systems that treat land and water as commodities to frameworks grounded in Indigenous law, consent, and accountability. Land is not a resource to be managed but a living relation to be nurtured and respected. FPIC is not a bureaucratic step, it is a political and legal commitment to Indigenous self-determination.

At a time when the dominant climate discourse prioritises competitiveness, security, and industrial growth, Indigenous Peoples are reminding the world that the real response to the polycrisis crisis is not dominance but justice.

Gaps in Global Climate Finance and Governance

The language of a “just transition” has gained prominence in global climate discussions, including at the UNFCCC and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This should involve a process driven by frontline and Indigenous communities that ensures that the move away from extractive economies toward regenerative ones is equitable, democratic, and rooted in self-determination. It prioritizes repairing historical harms, redistributing power and resources, and creating sustainable livelihoods in harmony with Mother Earth. 

However, current interpretations of just transition at the COPs remain narrow. They focus primarily on labour transitions, industrial strategy, value additions and supply chain resilience. This framework often sidelines deeper justice dimensions, particularly those raised by Indigenous Peoples, land defenders, and frontline communities. What is left out is land rights, consent, decolonization, and systemic change.

Indigenous Peoples and other communities at the local level manage 50% of the world’s land and safeguard a great percentage of the remaining biodiversity, but they receive less than 1 % of climate finance and under 5 % of environmental aid.

Indigenous Peoples manage 50 % of the world’s land, but they receive less than 1 % of climate finance and under 5 % of environmental aid.

For example, Climate finance mechanisms continue to favour large-scale infrastructure over Indigenous-led systems. At UNFCCC COP26 in 2021 in Glasgow, governments and private funders pledged $1.7 billion USD between 2021–2025 to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities in securing land and resource rights.  The pledge was seen as a first step toward centering Indigenous Peoples’ rights in climate action, recognizing their vital role in protecting forests and biodiversity. Indigenous Peoples and other communities at the local level that depend on forests manage 50 %  of the world’s land and safeguard a great percentage of the remaining biodiversity, but they receive less than 1 % of climate finance and under 5 % of environmental aid. Furthermore, most of this finance is absorbed by NGOs, consultants, and agencies rather than reaching communities directly.

The latest data from the Forest Tenure Funders Group 2023-2024 report on the 1,7 USD billion pledge shows some improvement, but it is still far below what their contributions merit. According to the report, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ organisations received 2.6 % in 2021, 2.1 % in 2022, and 10.6 % in 2023 of the yearly contributions building up the 1,7 USD billion target. Meanwhile, UNFCCC processes continue to privilege market-based solutions and industry partnerships while limiting Indigenous Peoples’ ability to shape negotiations.

Indigenous Demands for True Climate Justice

At UNFCCC COPs and other global climate forums, Indigenous Peoples bring demands that are grounded in lived experience, international legislation, and the urgent need to stop the ongoing violation of their rights in the name of climate action. They call for binding legal recognition of their land and territorial rights as the foundational step toward climate justice. Without secure land tenure, the extractive model will continue to override Indigenous governance, regardless of policymakers’ “green” intentions.

The principle of FPIC must be fully implemented, not as a procedural formality but as a substantive right. Indigenous communities must lead their own environmental and social assessments of projects that affect them. The growing calls for a global moratorium on mining in Indigenous territories without consent reflect the deep harms already unfolding in the name of the energy transition. Indigenous leaders have made it clear: decarbonization cannot be used to justify another wave of colonial intrusion.

Too often, justice is framed in economic terms, as if value can only be measured by return on investment. But justice is not a balance sheet. There is no price tag on the bond between people and land.

Too often, justice is framed in economic terms, as if value can only be measured by return on investment. But justice is not a balance sheet.

Equally pressing is the demand for direct, long-term climate finance. Indigenous Peoples face both the disproportionate impacts of Climate Change and the consequences of the solutions put forward to address it. At the same time, they protect biodiversity and ecosystems essential to keeping planetary resilience and stewarding vast carbon sinks. Yet, as mentioned above, they receive less than 1 % of global climate funding. Indigenous Peoples are calling for direct access to funding that is aligned with the UNDRIP, the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. At the same time, Indigenous governance systems and protocols must be recognized within the formal climate architecture, from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to global climate financing frameworks.

Also essential is the protection of Indigenous women and land defenders. The targeting and criminalisation of those who speak out against extractive projects are escalating, and international accountability mechanisms must be enforced to safeguard those defending life itself. The transition is not neutral; it is being increasingly militarized, securitized, and imposed. In 2023, at least 196 land and environmental defenders were killed worldwide. Of those, 43 % were Indigenous, an alarming figure that reflects how disproportionately Indigenous communities bear the brunt of violence linked to land and environmental defence.

Finally, what does a just transition look like for Indigenous Peoples? It is not a question of compensation or market incentives, but it is a question of survival, of rights, of relationships. Too often, justice is framed in economic terms, as if value can only be measured by return on investment. But justice is not a balance sheet. There is no price tag on the bond between people and land, no metric that can measure a spiritual relationship with water, or a duty passed down through generations to protect biodiversity.

The post What does a just transition look like for Indigenous Peoples? appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Argentina’s legal framework on Indigenous Peoples is of constitutional status. It recognizes their pre-existence as distinct peoples, their right to collective ownership of ancestral territories and to management of natural resources. Although Argentina has ratified ILO Convention 169 and endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there are still no national laws regulating collective land ownership or the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. As a result, the effective exercise of Indigenous Peoples’ specific collective rights is often dependent on the political will of national and provincial governments.

Regulatory Rollbacks and Violations of Rights in Argentina

The Argentine Republic has signed and ratified the Paris Agreement. In December 2020, it submitted its Second Nationally-Determined Contribution (NDC), committing to limiting net greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 359 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030, in line with Article 4.4 of the Agreement. The government’s current actions are, however, moving in the opposite direction. President Javier Milei, who denies the existence of climate change and has claimed it is “just another collapsing lie”, ordered the withdrawal of Argentina’s delegation on the third day of COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan — a move that caused significant concern among other delegations.

In recent months, the government has introduced a series of regulatory changes that pose serious threats to the rights of Indigenous communities. These measures dismantle oversight mechanisms for extractive activities and have a severe impact on Indigenous territorial rights. They also encourage the intensified exploitation of natural resources by repealing laws deemed “restrictive” and dismantling state regulatory bodies — signalling a policy of full deregulation in the agricultural, energy, and mining sectors.

Furthermore, the National Executive issued Emergency Decree 1083/2024, which repealed the most recent extension of the Indigenous Territorial Emergency Law. The expiry of this legal protection leaves Indigenous communities at risk of forced evictions — some of which have already begun — and is heightening tensions that need to be urgently addressed through the passage of a law to implement Indigenous communal land ownership. In addition, in 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its ruling in Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina, ordering the State to adopt “legislative and/or other measures to provide legal certainty for the human right to Indigenous communal property”.

A New Form of Colonialism

In an increasingly adverse context for Indigenous rights, lithium extraction — a key component of the energy transition — is advancing rapidly. Pía Marchegiani, Deputy Executive Director of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), notes that, in recent years, global demand for lithium has surged, largely driven by mounting pressure from the Global North to accelerate energy transition strategies. “But what about ecosystems and human rights?” she asks.

Indeed, complaints from Indigenous Peoples have intensified in response to the exploitation of natural resources by companies operating with the backing of both provincial and national governments. These operations often ignore environmental impact assessments and violate the human rights of those most affected. While moving away from fossil fuels is undeniably urgent, doing so by replicating the current model of excessive natural resource consumption will only reinforce the very same extractivist logic that underpins today’s energy system — a model that is abusive, individualistic, and inherently harmful to both people and the planet.

Colonial dynamics have intensified across the region in recent decades, marked by an increasing concentration of land and resources in the hands of large foreign corporations, facilitated by local governments. The Indigenous organizations are, however, responding.

Colonial dynamics have intensified across the region, marked by an increasing concentration of land and resources in the hands of large foreign corporations, facilitated by local governments.

Lithium extraction has caused significant damage in several regions of Argentina.This is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a long history of plundering and sacrificing natural resources that has repeated itself throughout the continent. Since European colonization, Latin American territories have been treated as raw material reserves for the Global North. In this context, resistance to extractivism represents a continuing struggle to defend Indigenous lands and territories.

Colonial dynamics have intensified across the region in recent decades, marked by an increasing concentration of land and resources in the hands of large foreign corporations, facilitated by local governments. The Indigenous organizations are, however, responding.

Diaguita Women Defenders of Life

In the official discourse promoted by both transnational corporations and local governments, the energy transition is portrayed as the arrival of progress to rural territories. In the province of Catamarca, media campaigns and official announcements seek to reinforce the idea of the “benefits” that mining would bring. From this perspective, it seems as if domestic economies and local forms of organization are “backward” compared to the innovation and “prosperity” promised by large mining projects, along with the promise of job creation.

The young Indigenous women of the Union of the Diaguita Nation Peoples are promoting a community defence strategy in response to the contradictions posed by the energy transition in their territory. They are rolling out concrete, localized practices that challenge exploitative policies, halt the plundering of their lands, and call for action. The young women from the Yocavil Valley, east of Catamarca, assert that life must be defended in real-time: “We can’t just keep watching companies destroy the territories without doing anything.”

“We know very well the wealth we have; we do not want their so-called progress. That is why we are organizing to preserve our territory from mining companies,” explains Milagros Romero.

Milagros Romero: “We know very well the wealth we have; we do not want their so-called progress. That is why we are organizing to preserve our territory from mining companies.”

The Yocavil Valley has a long-standing history of struggle by the peoples who have ancestrally inhabited it. The young Diaguita women leaders state that they are choosing to care for the land today because tomorrow will be too late, emphasizing that progress and development are not the same. Milagros Romero, from the Toro Yaco community, explains that a full life is related to both practice and reflection on how we consume, produce, and care for nature. For this reason, the Union of the Peoples of the Diaguita Nation produces and markets their food, spices and crafts while protecting the natural environment they belong to, all while actively blocking the entry of extractive companies. “We know very well the wealth we have; we do not want their so-called progress. That is why we are organizing to preserve our territory from mining companies,” explains Milagros.

Similarly, in December 2024, the Solidarity Union of Communities of the Diaguita Cacano People issued a declaration condemning the presidential decree that repealed the Indigenous Territorial Emergency Law, and they called for the establishment of an Indigenous parliament. The declaration argued that the sole purpose of the decree was to allow unrestricted exploitation of Mother Earth and to dispossess Indigenous communities of their legitimate rights, which are recognized by international treaties and national legislation. Additionally, it warned that the situation had deteriorated because the government deemed the number of registered communities excessive and was labelling many as non-existent.

The Kolla People of Salinas Defend Their Territory Against the Expansion of Lithium Mining

In Jujuy, the communities of the Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc region are facing a serious violation of their human and environmental rights. Mining exploration continues to advance despite the absence of complete and comprehensive environmental impact assessments covering the entire basin, which are essential to accurately identify the real risks in this water-scarce area. The Indigenous Communities’ Assembly of Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc has been engaged in decades of struggle and advocacy across multiple arenas. They have even drafted their own Free, Prior, and Informed Consent protocol, which the provincial government has yet to implement.

Additionally, the brothers and sisters of the Kolla people of Jujuy from Salinas Grandes took part in the so-called Third March for Peace, which challenged the then provincial government led by Gerardo Morales in 2023. At that time, the executive branch imposed a provincial constitutional reform favouring resource exploitation at the expense of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Consequently, the communities endured violent repression, various forms of persecution, and the criminalization of social protest.

The World Bank has suspended all planned hydrological studies that were to be conducted without consulting or involving the Indigenous communities in the Salinas basin.

The World Bank has suspended all planned hydrological studies that were to be conducted without consulting or involving the Indigenous communities in the Salinas basin.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Jujuy granted an injunction affirming the right to environmental public information. This ruling benefits the Indigenous communities of Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc, recognizing their right to access reliable environmental information—a right already enshrined in the Escazú Agreement. The legal action was brought by the Foundation for Environment and Natural Resources (FARN) in order to obtain information on lithium and borate mining applications to operate within their territories.

Moreover, in a letter dated 24 February 2025, the Kolla communities of Jujuy received encouraging news: the World Bank has suspended all planned hydrological studies that were to be conducted without consulting or involving the Indigenous communities in the Salinas basin. The financial institution has also ordered the suspension of these studies until all stakeholders can engage in meaningful dialogue.

A Transition That Upholds Human Rights

The energy transition in our countries must represent an opportunity to move toward fairer and more equitable processes of energy production and distribution. In this context, the role of the international human rights protection system is crucial to ensuring respect for and enforcement of human rights within climate crisis solutions.

As stated by the International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change in their final advocacy document on “Just Transition” for COP28 of the UNFCCC: “The rights, perspectives, knowledge systems, and lived experiences of Indigenous Peoples must be considered and fully integrated into the definitions, criteria, and implementation of Just Transition projects and programmes.”

The normative framework established in the Declaration, alongside the commitments made under the Paris Agreement, moves us closer to the ideal of “justice” in the Energy Transition. The current extraction of transition minerals such as lithium, copper, and nickel on Indigenous territories is, however, happening without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent—falling far short of what justice requires.

The post Indigenous Peoples and the Energy Transition: Mining and Pollution in Argentina appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Although many countries—especially in Europe—have sped up their energy transitions to meet climate commitments and to respond to the energy crisis triggered by the war between Russia and Ukraine, not all possess sufficient reserves of these minerals. The success of the transition is closely linked to the availability and supply of these resources, potentially reinforcing extractivist development models in resource-rich countries.

According to the International Energy Agency, China is the world’s leading producer and processor of rare earth elements, accounting for around 60% of global extraction and nearly 90% of global processing. The Xi Jinping administration has recognized that the value of these minerals lies not only in their marketability but also in their strategic importance for technological advancement. As a result, Western countries have become increasingly dependent on China—a dynamic that directly affects both the pace and the sovereignty of the global energy transition. In Latin America, only Brazil ranks among the top ten countries with the largest reserves, placing third with approximately 15% of the global total.

Rare Earth Elements and Critical Minerals in Indigenous Territories

Paradoxically, the energy transition that is being driven by renewable sources has increased the demand for rare earth elements and critical minerals—non-renewable resources—the extraction of which is concentrated in strategic and fragile ecosystems, such as Indigenous territories. A global study published in 2022, based on the international platform on mineral supplies for the energy transition, reveals that more than a half of extractive projects related to these resources are located within or near Indigenous lands.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, an estimated 73% of these projects directly or indirectly affect formally titled Indigenous territories. Many also overlap with areas facing high levels of water stress, further increasing their environmental vulnerability.

The exploitation of rare earth elements and critical minerals brings not only significant environmental impacts but also deep social and cultural consequences. These include the risk of forced displacement of Indigenous communities and threats to their cultural identity, driven by migration, territorial fragmentation, and the rapid transformation of their ways of life. Traditional decision-making structures and governance systems are also being undermined—especially as state authorities continue to disregard the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

Bolivia in the Context of Rare Earth Element and Critical Mineral Extraction

Bolivia is suffering a profound economic and energy crisis resulting from the collapse of its hydrocarbon-based development model. The surge in international oil prices, combined with a sharp decline in domestic gas reserves, has triggered a severe fiscal imbalance. This crisis has far-reaching impacts across the social, political, and legal spheres and is compounded by weak democratic institutions and a lack of independence of the different branches of government.

Against this backdrop of multidimensional crisis, the national government has chosen to further entrench the extractivist development model by expanding hydrocarbon and mining frontiers into the Amazon, and is showing increased interest in the extraction of rare earth elements and critical minerals. While international attention on the energy transition has largely focused on lithium extraction projects in the country’s southeast, it is essential to also pay close attention to exploration and extraction initiatives targeting rare earth elements and critical minerals in regions such as the Amazon, Chiquitanía, Chaco, and Pantanal.

The national government is seeking to promote a “new, non-traditional mining” approach to meet the growing global demand in the face of the energy transition.

The national government is seeking to promote a “new, non-traditional mining” approach to meet the growing global demand in the face of the energy transition.

As part of the expansion of the extractivist model,in 2022 Bolivia established the Vice Ministry of Technological Minerals and Rare Earth Elements as part of its extractivist expansion strategy. Two years later, in January 2024, the Ministry of Mining and Metallurgy announced the commencement of exploration activities for these resources. The national government is seeking to promote a “new, non-traditional mining” approach to meet the growing global demand in the face of the energy transition. The objective is to diversify mineral extraction beyond traditional resources—such as silver, tin, lead, zinc, and gold—towards others like nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements. To support this, the Bolivian Mining Corporation (COMIBOL), the state-owned enterprise that manages the mining production chain, has created the National Directorate of Technological Minerals and Rare Earths.

Alongside lithium extraction in Potosí, led by Yacimientos de Litio Bolivianos (YLB), two rare earth exploration projects are currently underway in Bolivia: Cerro Manomó and Rincón del Tigre, both located in Santa Cruz department within the Chiquitanía and Pantanal regions. These projects aim to identify and quantify reserves of minerals, including thorium, niobium, nickel, cobalt, chromium, gold, and rare earth elements.

Additionally, in 2023, prospecting activities took place in San Javier (Chiquitanía), where samples of rubidium, cesium, tungsten, titanium, tantalum, lanthanum, praseodymium, europium, cerium, neodymium, samarium, and thorium were taken. To date, the results of these studies remain unpublished, and little is known about which stakeholders may be involved in the extraction phase.

Technological Minerals and Rare Earth Elements in Indigenous Territories

There is currently no official database on the presence of technological minerals or rare earth elements in Indigenous territories of the Eastern region, the Chaco, and the Amazon. However, an overlay analysis conducted by CEJIS—comparing the Map of Technological Minerals and Rare Earths in Bolivia with the surface area of the 58 Indigenous Territories formally recognized by the State—reveals that these projects are mainly concentrated in the regions of Chiquitanía, Pantanal, and Northern Amazonia.

In Chiquitanía, the Indigenous Community Lands (TCO) of Guarayos, Monte Verde, Lomerío, and Zapocó are directly threatened by the Pico Suto project, while the Bajo Paragua TCO is affected by the Cerro Manomó project. In the Pantanal, the Rincón del Tigre project is directly affecting the Pantanal TCO and the territory of the same name owned by the Ayoreo people. In the Northern Amazon, the Madre de Dios gold mining project will directly affect the Multiethnic II Territory.

In addition, projects implemented by COMIBOL in Santa Cruz department will have an indirect impact on four Indigenous territories: Guarayos, Pantanal, Tobité, and Turubó Este.

Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation and Initial Contact

Prospecting projects also pose a significant threat to Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation and initial contact in the Pantanal and the transitional areas toward the Chaco. In particular, the Rincón del Tigre project directly affects the migratory routes of the last Ayoreo groups that remain in voluntary isolation.

There is no evidence that safeguards have been developed to protect the integrity of these peoples or to uphold their decision to remain in isolation, as established by Article 31 of the Political Constitution of the State, in force since 2009. In an effort to strengthen international protections, the situation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples’—including those living in voluntary isolation and initial contact— was addressed during the 24^th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in the context of critical mineral extraction. On that occasion, the Forum recommended “prohibiting any economic activity, particularly exploration, research, extraction, and processing of critical minerals for the energy transition, in territories known to be inhabited by peoples in voluntary isolation.”

Far from implementing this recommendation, national authorities are continuing to expand prospecting activities into regions with a confirmed presence of Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact.

Absence of Prior Consultation and Environmental Information

Although the Constitution states an obligation to conduct Free, Prior and Informed Consultation (FPIC) with Indigenous Peoples before any activity that may affect their lives or rights, the national policy promoting the so-called “new non-traditional mining” — particularly the exploitation of rare earth elements and critical minerals — has not been put out to consultation with the Indigenous communities in the Chiquitanía or Pantanal TCOs.

The Pico Suto, Cerro Manomó, and Rincón del Tigre projects were not previously discussed with the Guarayo, Chiquitano, or Ayoreo Indigenous authorities. The exclusion of Indigenous communities from consultation processes is rooted in Mining and Metallurgy Law No. 535, enacted in May 2014, which exempts prospecting activities from the requirement for consultation. This provision is openly unconstitutional, as it contradicts both the national Constitution and international instruments on Indigenous rights.

The application of this law exacerbates the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the Ayoreo, who include groups living in voluntary isolation in the area targeted by the Rincón del Tigre project. The law allows prospecting activities to proceed without oversight or Indigenous participation, based solely on a simple administrative authorization issued by the mining authorities. This situation is further compounded by the lack of publicly available information on the environmental impacts — both at the prospecting stage and during potential future exploitation.

Conclusion

The energy transition cannot take place at the expense of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, nor through the destruction of their territories and the environment. The experience of Indigenous communities in the Chiquitanía and Pantanal regions reveals that, far from offering a departure from the extractivist model, the implementation of rare earth and critical mineral exploration and exploitation projects is actually entrenching it. This results in increased pressure on Indigenous territories and further violations of their collective rights.

The silent advance of this “new mining” in Bolivia’s lowlands is already producing tangible consequences: exploration and extraction projects are being carried out without the consultation or consent of the affected Indigenous Peoples. These activities have led to significant losses of natural heritage — especially forests — and have worsened climate change impacts, such as water stress.

Bolivia is at a crossroads: it can continue down the path of extractivism or move toward development models that genuinely respect the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. In this context, it is urgent to restore effective safeguards and ensure that Free, Prior and Informed Consultation processes are carried out at all stages of mining projects — as a minimum condition for advancing toward a truly just energy transition.

The post Bolivia: The Energy Transition and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Face of Critical Mineral Extraction appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

In this context, lithium has become a strategic resource. As an alkaline metal found in both rocks and in marine and continental waters, it possesses properties that make it ideal for energy storage. As a result, lithium has become a key mineral in the production of rechargeable batteries. Demand for lithium has grown exponentially in recent years and is expected to increase eighteenfold by 2030 and sixtyfold by 2050.

The so-called “lithium triangle”, encompassing deposits located in the high Andean salt flats of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile (ABC region), has gained global significance, containing 53% of the world’s identified lithium reserves. Production from these brine deposits, combined with hard-rock lithium extraction in Australia, accounted for 75% of global production in 2023. Argentina and Chile alone contributed one-third of the world’s total lithium output. Although Bolivia’s production is still in its early stages, its salt flats contain the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

The Development of Lithium in the High Andean Salt Flats

In Chile, lithium extraction in the Atacama Salt Flat began in the 1980s under state leadership. Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile (SQM) and Albemarle, the companies that now dominate the market, are however controlled by private national and international conglomerates from the United States and China. Chile is currently the world’s second-largest lithium producer, after Australia, and has been implementing a National Lithium Strategy since 2023. Meanwhile, the state-owned company CODELCO, the world’s leading copper producer, has partnered with SQM to exploit lithium from the Atacama Salt Flat and has acquired a project in the Maricunga Salt Flat, located within the traditional territory of the Colla people. In 2024, the government invited foreign investors to exploit other salt flats, with nearly 50 companies responding.

In Argentina, lithium extraction began in 1997 when the U.S.-based FMC Corporation initiated operations at the Salar del Hombre Muerto in the province of Catamarca. In the 21^st century, new projects were launched in Jujuy, Salta, and Catamarca, particularly at the Caucharí-Olaroz and Pastos Grandes salt flats. Argentina is the world’s fifth-largest lithium producer, with an 87.5% increase in annual production in 2024. Today, pressure from the industry, along with provincial and federal legislation promoted by the government of Javier Milei, is extending to potential deposits in the Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc basins, further escalating social conflict.

The high Andean salt flats of the ABC are territories traditionally occupied by various Indigenous Peoples. For 13,000 years, these Peoples have developed an agro-pastoral culture adapted to the high altitude ecosystems.

The high Andean salt flats of ABC are territories traditionally occupied by Indigenous Peoples such as the Aymara, Quechua, Lipeño, Atacameño and Colla.

In Bolivia, lithium exploration in the Salar de Uyuni began in the 1970s and, in 1980, the government granted a license to the American company, Lithium Corporation (Lithco), whose presence was however short-lived. In 2008, the government of Evo Morales introduced a policy of state control and established a plan for lithium industrialization: pilot plants were set up, and agreements were signed with foreign companies. Lithium carbonate production, which began in 2013, remains limited due to technological gaps, administrative challenges, and social conflicts. Since 2017, the state-owned company, Yacimientos de Litio Bolivianos (YLB), has been responsible for development and has called on foreign companies to submit proposals for Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) in Uyuni and six other salt flats. Following processes marked by a lack of transparency, the Russian-based Uranium One Group and the Chinese Hong Kong CBC Investment Limited were selected.

The high Andean salt flats of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile (ABC) are territories traditionally inhabited by various Indigenous Peoples. For over 13,000 years, these communities have developed an agro-pastoral culture adapted to high-altitude ecosystems ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 meters above sea level. It is estimated that over a dozen Indigenous Peoples live around these areas, such as the Aymara, Quechua, Lipeño, Atacameño, and Colla, descendants of the Tiwanaku and Inca cultures, distributed across more than 200 communities. While these communities have diversified in recent decades, incorporating both small and large-scale mining (such as copper and lithium) and tourism, their economies have traditionally centered around the husbandry of camelids (llamas, guanacos, and vicuñas) and the cultivation of traditional crops such as quinoa and maize, which are vital to their cultures and worldviews.

The Impact on Human Rights

Alongside the violation of property rights over their lands and traditionally occupied territories, which, as they are not recognized or titled in favor of the communities, are taken over by companies exploiting lithium, one of the most affected rights is the right to participation, consultation, and consent. With the exception of a few recent cases in Chile and Argentina, lithium operations have not been properly consulted in good faith with the aim of reaching an agreement or consent with the communities that could be directly affected, as required by ILO Convention No. 169.

In the few cases where lithium operations approved by the states have been consulted, they have suffered from procedural shortcomings, being limited to certain aspects of the projects consulted with a few communities. In none of these consultations regarding development plans or large-scale investments with a significant impact on Indigenous territories has free, prior, and informed consent been obtained. Consequently, the right of these peoples to self-determination, as recognized by the United Nations Declaration and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has been violated.

Environmental and social impacts have rarely been offset. Even less have the enormous profits that companies make as a result of lithium exploitation been shared.

Environmental and social impacts have rarely been offset. Even less have the enormous benefits that companies derive been shared.

The impacts on Indigenous rights are compounded by the impacts on the environment and water. In the Atacama Salt Flat, the contamination caused by lithium extraction through the removal of brine and its settling in evaporation pools has been confirmed. In 2024, the University of Chile reported that the Atacama Salt Flat was sinking at a rate of 1 to 2 centimeters per year as a result of brine extractions. The same study also showed that the groundwater levels of the salt flat have fallen by more than 10 meters in the last 15 years. This has led to a significant loss of vegetation cover in areas used for agriculture and grazing, as well as the loss of lagoons.

Similar impacts on water have also been documented in the Salar del Hombre Muerto (Argentina), where companies have been operating for decades using the same intensive methods as in Chile. Compensation has rarely been provided for these environmental and social impacts. Far less have the huge profits that companies derive from lithium extraction been shared. In Chile, SQM reported revenues of 7.5 billion dollars in 2023 and 4.5 billion dollars in 2024.

The Injustice of the Energy Transition

To date, the only compensation for the destruction of Indigenous territories has occurred in Chile: in 2016, an agreement was made between Rockwood Lithium (Albemarle) and the Lickanantay people to include them in the benefits of lithium exploitation. Similarly, in 2018, the Production Development Corporation (CORFO, from Spanish: Corporación de Fomento de la Producción) signed an agreement with Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile: while the state agency authorized the company to extend its operations in the Atacama Salt Flat until 2030, SQM committed to making annual contributions to the Atacama communities. However, since the communities were not consulted, the agreement was challenged by the Atacameño Peoples Council.

Thus far, lithium development in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile has caused significant violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples living in the high Andean salt flats, as well as damage to the environment and water resources. Given lithium’s central role in the global energy transition and the increasing importance of the lithium reserves in the Andean salt flats in recent years, it is crucial to ask whether this transition is truly fair to the peoples living in these salt flats. All signs indicate that it is not, and that fundamental changes are needed to ensure that the energy transition is genuinely fair.

As highlighted by the International Indigenous Peoples Rights (IPRI) report and the report from the Center for Information on Business and Human Rights (CIEDH) on Indigenous Peoples and the Just Transition, for the energy transition to be truly just, both states and companies must ensure respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including the right to consent, participation in benefits, and compensation for any damages caused. This is especially crucial when their territories are being impacted by natural resource extraction and processing projects. There is still a long road ahead to ensure that lithium development in the Andean salt flats of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile is part of the “just energy transition” that states and companies claim to be promoting.

This article reports on progress in the research project “Impacts of lithium development on indigenous territories in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile” (No. 110326-001), which the Observatorio Ciudadano is conducting in collaboration with CELS in Argentina and CIDES UMSA in Bolivia, with support from IDRC in Canada.

The post A Just Energy Transition? The Impacts of Lithium Extraction on the Andean Salt Flats of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

At the heart of this tension lies Polar Lithium, a joint venture between the companies Nornickel and Rosatom, tasked with developing Kolmozerskoye, Russia’s largest lithium deposit in the Murmansk Region. While the project promises to bolster the country’s strategic position in the global lithium market, it also raises significant concerns for the Indigenous Sámi People whose ancestral lands are directly impacted.

Lithium’s Role in the Global Economy and Russia’s New Focus

Lithium, coined as the “white gold” and “new oil” of the renewable revolution, is shifting global markets. Currently, battery production accounts for 74% of global lithium demand, and this share is expected to grow dramatically as electric vehicle adoption and renewable energy storage systems expand. By 2030, lithium demand is expected to increase 18-fold compared to 2021, with a staggering 60-fold surge anticipated by 2050. Notably, 80% of global lithium deposits are located on lands historically significant to Indigenous Peoples.

Recognizing that the growing demand for raw materials like lithium will, in turn, reshape and possibly shift the focus of geopolitical power, Russia has urgently prioritized developing its domestic lithium capacity to reduce reliance on imports. The country has large lithium ore reserves, accounting for 10% of global reserves (in addition to two of Ukraine’s four lithium deposits, which Russia seized control of since its invasion in 2022). Deposits previously abandoned due to non-viability are now seen as critical for strengthening the country’s domestic supply chain. Accordingly, Russia is rapidly advancing lithium ore mining projects at the Zavitinskoye, Polmostundrovskoye, Kovyktinskoye, Yaraktinskoye and Kolmozerskoye deposits with accelerated development planned between 2023 and 2030 to meet most of the growing domestic demand.

In February 2023, Polar Lithium, a collaboration between Nornickel and Rosatom, was awarded the exclusive right to exploit Kolmozerskoye, Russia’s largest lithium deposit. The project, located in the Murmansk Region, aligns with broader plans to reduce the country’s dependence on imported lithium and battery components and is expected to produce 45,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate and hydroxide (key materials for battery production) annually. Awarded through an auction by Russia’s Federal Agency for Subsoil Resources Management, the project has a 20-year subsoil use license with a starting bid of 19 million USD.

Extensive exploration drilling—184 wells totaling over 40 km—was completed in 2023 and 2024, signaling Nornickel’s potential pivot to lithium mining as part of its broader strategy. Rosatom is also constructing a battery factory in Kaliningrad, which is set to produce batteries for 50,000 electric vehicles annually starting in 2025. Another facility is planned, though its location remains undisclosed.

Impacts of Lithium Extraction & Indigenous Communities

Nornickel is the foremost producer of nickel, palladium, and platinum globally, and is also the leading mining and metals enterprise in Russia. Today, driven by global market trends and geopolitical pressures, this global mining giant, with a controversial history of environmental and social harm, is rapidly positioning itself as a major player in Arctic lithium extraction.

Whereas the company’s dominance in Arctic mining and its established infrastructure position Nornickel as a leader in the new frontier, its history casts a long shadow. Past incidents, such as the catastrophic 2020 diesel spill in Norilsk, have underscored its environmental negligence. The company is also responsible for the emission of heavy metals into the atmosphere and the discharge of chemical wastewater into nearby rivers. The potential for similar harm in lithium mining raises questions about whether Nornickel’s green energy agenda is a genuine step toward sustainability or merely another platform for resource exploitation.

The construction of extractive facilities posed a growing challenge to Indigenous nomadic communities. The presence of Nornickel in the region has resulted in a significant reduction in hunting, fishing, and reindeer grounds.

The construction of extractive facilities posed a growing challenge to Indigenous nomadic communities.

Although the project promises economic benefits, it poses severe risks to Arctic ecosystems and Indigenous communities. In particular, the construction of extractive facilities posed a growing challenge to Indigenous nomadic communities. The presence of Nornickel in the region has resulted in a significant reduction in hunting, fishing, and reindeer grounds. While Nornickel has adopted the language of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, portraying itself as a steward of sustainability, its track record suggests otherwise. Investments in emissions reduction have been criticized as superficial, failing to address systemic environmental harm. Similarly, Kolmozerskoye promises economic and strategic gains. Nevertheless, it risks perpetuating cycles of social injustice.

The expansion into lithium mining also represents a potential new pathway for environmental harm, threatening Arctic ecosystems already under strain from climate change and industrial activity. Open-pit mining, the planned extraction method, is one of the most environmentally destructive techniques. It involves removing vast amounts of vegetation, topsoil, and rock, contaminating air and water sources, while causing significant biodiversity loss. Moreover, mining operations could accelerate permafrost degradation, releasing trapped greenhouse gases and further destabilizing the climate.

Indigenous Rights and the Illusion of Consent

Arctic Indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on reindeer herding, fishing, and hunting are particularly vulnerable. The Kolmozerskoye project threatens their cultural and economic practices, exacerbating the already significant pressures from climate change and industrial encroachment. In fact, lithium mining has already worsened these challenges, displacing communities and eroding cultural practices tied to the land. The Kolmozero region, once home to reindeer herding camps and a meteorological station vital to the Sámi and Komi Peoples, has been deeply affected. When it was announced that lithium extraction would take place in the area, the Indigenous communities chose to leave their ancestral lands. The reindeer herding enterprise “Tundra,” managing 20,000 reindeer, faces potential collapse due to habitat destruction and pollution.

The superficial engagement of Indigenous communities further exacerbates the lingering distrust of industrial projects. All decisions concerning the extractive industry generally occur behind closed doors without much consultation with the people affected about their needs or interests. Despite Nornickel’s assurances and the project’s narrative of fostering a “cleaner world” and engaging with Indigenous Peoples, Sámi residents have raised concerns about the superficial nature of the consultations, noting that only a small fraction of the Sámi population was surveyed. Only 50 Sámi individuals were consulted, despite the region being home to approximately 2,500 Sámi people.

In the hands of companies like Nornickel, FPIC becomes a superficial mechanism, masking underlying coercion and perpetuating the systemic erosion of Indigenous rights and autonomy.

In the hands of companies like Nornickel, FPIC becomes a superficial mechanism, masking underlying coercion and perpetuating the erosion of Indigenous rights.

While Nornickel claims adherence to the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), communities are often left with little choice in practice. Instead of genuine dialogue, Nornickel presents the so-called “preferential deals,” effectively pressuring communities into relocation. These tactics reflect deeper structural issues: existing governance structures, including Russian laws and international frameworks like the Arctic Council, have largely failed to protect Indigenous rights, leaving communities vulnerable to exploitation and displacement. Nornickel’s operations reinforce this gap, avoiding meaningful consultation with affected communities.

While branded as FPIC, such practices erode Indigenous sovereignty and perpetuate systemic injustice, highlighting the significant power imbalance between industrial developers and economically vulnerable Indigenous populations. Companies exploit this vulnerability by offering minor incentives, while the consent they secure serves to legitimize their activities. The result is a deeply imbalanced transaction that leaves Indigenous communities with little more than unmet promises and the burden of exploitation. In the hands of companies like Nornickel, FPIC becomes a superficial mechanism, masking underlying coercion and perpetuating the systemic erosion of Indigenous rights and autonomy.

Towards a Just Transition

As nations seek to meet climate targets, the stakes for the Arctic’s ecosystems and peoples have never been higher. The region has been eyed as a major site for green energy projects, including wind farms, solar power, and hydropower. Indigenous communities are once again caught in the middle of the green wars. 

Nornickel, a company that portrays itself as a leader in Russia’s green energy ambitions, is deeply tainted by a legacy of environmental destruction and violations of Indigenous rights. The Kolmozerskoye project and similar initiatives highlight the urgent need for a global dialogue on the ethics of Arctic resource extraction. The questions remain: Will Arctic Indigenous peoples have a say in shaping the future of their lands and resources in the race for green energy? Or will the pursuit of green energy come at the expense of the Arctic’s ecosystems and peoples? These questions are particularly pressing given the geopolitical and economic pressures driving Arctic resource extraction, including the involvement of state-backed corporations like Rosatom and Nornickel. The answer will shape the future of the Arctic and its role in the global green economy.

Like any other land-intensive extractive initiative, the development of green mega-projects is prone to provoke conflicts with the communities affected at the local level. It can, therefore, easily renew historical processes of dispossession and colonialism and undermine decades of hard-won progress. The Arctic’s lithium frontier reflects the contradictions of a green economy reliant on resource-intensive practices and encapsulates the paradox of the green economy: resources essential for sustainability threaten to undermine the very goals they aim to achieve. A sustainable future requires not just technological innovation but also a commitment to equity, accountability, and ecological stewardship. Without these measures, the pursuit of “white gold” may leave behind a legacy of loss rather than progress.

On the contrary, a Just Transition framework emphasizes fairness and inclusivity in the shift toward a green economy, ensuring that Indigenous communities, ecosystems, and local stakeholders are prioritized rather than marginalized. In the Arctic context, a just transition framework must include:

1. Participatory Governance: Indigenous Peoples, including the Sámi, must be actively involved in decision-making processes at all stages of resource extraction projects. This requires formal mechanisms for consultation and consent with veto power over projects that affect their lands.

2. Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms: Revenue generated from Arctic lithium extraction must be equitably distributed to Indigenous communities. This could include, but is not limited to, royalty payments, investment in local infrastructure, and funding for cultural preservation programs. A portion of profits from projects like Kolmozerskoye should fund community-led initiatives, such as renewable energy systems, education, and healthcare, empowering Indigenous Peoples to shape their own sustainable futures.

3. Legal Protections for Indigenous Rights: Strengthened legal frameworks should designate no-go zones for industrial activity in culturally or ecologically significant areas.

4. Environmental Stewardship: Mining operations must adhere to stringent environmental standards, with mandatory third-party audits and real-time monitoring of ecological impacts.

Due to the country’s political context, the authors prefer to remain anonymous.

The post From Nickel to Lithium: Nornickel, Indigenous Rights, and the Dilemma of a Green Economy in the Arctic appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

According to the 2021 population census report, Indigenous Peoples, also known as Adivasi Janajati, make up around 35.08% of Nepal’s total population of 29,164,578. However, Indigenous experts, scholars, and organizations argue that their population exceeds 50%. There are 60 Indigenous groups officially recognized, while the 2021 census report lists 19 additional Indigenous groups that have yet to be recognized.

Indigenous Peoples in Nepal have endured centuries of systematic discrimination, colonization, racism, exclusion, and marginalization in social, cultural, political, and economic spheres. Over the past 250 years, the modernization efforts—such as state-building, land and resource nationalization, cultural assimilation, territorial reorganization, power centralization, infrastructure development, forced labor, and the shift from feudalism to capitalism—have significantly harmed Indigenous Peoples.  Nepali society remains highly stratified, with the state-imposed Hindu caste system favoring upper castes (Bahun and Chhetri), who occupy key positions in the state. Nearly half of the population within 90% of Indigenous groups lives in extreme poverty.

Legal Commitments vs. Threats

National Climate Change Policy 2019 aims to reduce the vulnerabilities of communities, build the resilience of ecosystems, and mobilize international financial resources in a just manner to contribute to the socio-economic prosperity of the nation by building a climate-resilient society. Nepal’s Long-term Strategy for Net-Zero Emissions 2021 aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.

During the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP 28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in December 2023 in Dubai, Nepal committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and fully utilizing hydropower potentials to secure clean energy. The energy transition plan outlined in the Second Nationally Determined Contribution of 2020 aims to generate 15,000 MW (1,400 MW baseline in 2021) of clean energy by 2030. However, it aims to generate only 5,000 MW using national resources. The Fifteenth Plan (Fiscal Year 2019/20 – 2023/24) aims to develop 40,000 MW of electricity by 2044.

In response, Indigenous Peoples defend their self-determination in the face of threats posed by clean energy projects: forced evictions, militarization and environmental damage.

Indigenous Peoples defend their self-determination in the face of threats posed by clean energy projects: forced evictions, militarization and environmental damage.

Nepal ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No.169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Articles 51(b)(3) and 51(j)(8) of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 commit to implementing international treaties and ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights to a dignified life, identity, and participation in decision-making processes. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued a mandamus order directing the government to implement the ILO Convention 169, UNDRIP, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Right to Development in the context of development projects. Yet, these treaties have not translated into meaningful change on the ground.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has expressed concerns about the absence of laws guaranteeing Indigenous Peoples’ rights to own, use, and develop their traditional lands and resources. Despite Nepal’s legal frameworks, Indigenous Peoples continue to face systemic exclusion.

Indigenous Peoples are defending their land, resources, and self-determination against the threat posed by clean energy projects, which have led to land dispossession, forced evictions, militarization, and environmental harm. These projects jeopardize Indigenous cultural identity, spirituality, and livelihoods. Despite growing movements advocating for sovereignty and self-determination, the government and developers continue to push these aggressive energy projects in the name of development and decarbonizing the economy.

Case Studies: The Human Cost of Energy Projects

Currently, 81 hydropower projects are in operation, 180 are under construction, and 311 are undergoing license surveys. The state, private entities, public institutions, and International Financial Institutions are investing in these projects as they continue to commit to increasing their roles as climate banks. Nearly all of them are located within the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples. Nevertheless, the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the affected communities has been routinely ignored. Accordingly, the pursuit of renewable energy projects is revealing the darker side to this transition—one that disproportionately impacts Indigenous Peoples and their rights to land territories and resources and self-determination.

1. World Bank-financed Bharatpur-Bardaghat Transmission Line

The World Bank-financed Bharatpur-Bardaghat 220kV power transmission line, part of the Nepal-India Electricity Transmission and Trade Project, is in operation in Binayi Tribeni Rural Municipality-2, Nawalparasi district. Implemented by the Nepal Electricity Authority, the state-owned corporation, the project caused significant adverse impacts on Indigenous and local communities, including damage to homes, schools, cultural sites, agricultural lands, and the environment, and posed health and safety risks. The affected communities filed a complaint with the World Bank’s Inspection Panel on October 18, 2021.

The World Bank Board approved an investigation into the project on March 3, 2022. The parties involved agreed to pursue dispute resolution, and a Dispute Resolution Agreement was signed on April 11, 2023. However, nine signatories withdrew from the process, and those dissatisfied with the resolution filed a case against the project in the Supreme Court with support from the Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP). The case is still pending.

2. European Investment Bank-Financed Marshyangdi Corridor Transmission Line

The 220 kV Marsyangdi Corridor transmission line project in Lamjung district, funded by the European Investment Bank, has raised significant concerns regarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The bank has financed €95 million for the project, which is part of a broader investment in Nepal’s hydropower sector. The project has failed to uphold the Indigenous Peoples’ right to FPIC, violated the bank’s social and environmental safeguards, and breached its finance contract with Nepal Electricity Authority. In 2018, affected communities filed a complaint with the bank’s accountability office, which issued an investigation report in 2021 that identified grave human rights violations and recommended corrective actions, including halting the Marsyangdi Corridor project until the violations are addressed.

Though the bank suspended further disbursements, the affected communities continue to press for the implementation of the report’s recommendations. Despite this, the Nepal Electricity Authority and the bank are pushing forward with the project, supported by security forces. Legal and strategic support for the communities is provided by LAHURNIP and the Accountability Counsel, a US-based legal organization working to hold development banks accountable for their social and environmental policies and human rights.

3. Asian Development Bank-Financed Tamakoshi-Kathmandu Transmission Line

In Kathmandu’s Shankharapur municipality, Indigenous Tamang communities have been protesting against the Asian Development Bank-financed Tamakoshi-Kathmandu 200/400 kV Transmission Line and substation projects for the past 5 years. The substation is being built in a populated area, while the transmission line crosses homes, lands, and sacred sites. In January 2023, the Nepal Electricity Authority deployed security forces to forcefully begin survey work, leading to protests and the detention of 10 community leaders, including women and a minor. Despite filing complaints through multiple grievance mechanisms, including the National Human Rights Commission and the Asian Development Bank Nepal Resident Mission, the communities’ demands for FPIC have been ignored.

The government also set up an Armed Police Force camp at the site, further escalating tensions. The use of security forces to suppress Indigenous protests has become a concerning pattern. Police were deployed to intimidate and arrest community members. On 16 January 2025, 18 protesters were brutally beaten and arrested, with six detained for nine days and coerced into signing agreements to stop their protests, criminalizing their resistance. On February 4, LAHURNIP filed a complaint with the complaint mechanism of the Asian Development Bank.

A Call for a Truly Just Transition

Nepal’s transition to renewable energy must not come at the expense of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. A just transition is not only about reducing carbon emissions; it must also center the rights, dignity, and self-determination of the Indigenous Peoples who have stewarded the Earth for generations.

The cases in Nawalparasi, Lamjung, and Shankharapur are just a few examples of how this transition is negatively affecting Indigenous Peoples in Nepal. It is the legal duty of the Government of Nepal to translate ILO Convention No.169, the UNDRIP, and court orders into action to ensure that the just transition is genuinely just for Indigenous Peoples. It is imperative that the state, policymakers, developers, and International Financial Institutions respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and sovereignty in the context of the just transition.

Will Nepal’s energy transition become a model for environmental justice, or will it continue to prioritize economic growth at the expense of its Indigenous Peoples? The answer depends on whether the state, policymakers, developers, and international financiers are willing to listen to the voices of those who stand to lose the most in this transition.

The post The Unseen Cost of a ‘Just Transition’: Indigenous Rights at Risk in Nepal’s Renewable Energy Projects appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

The Moose Cree People understand the world as they are all related to Mother Earth’s creations. Everything is interconnected with one another to achieve harmony and balance. This is the Cree way of life, which is called ililiwi-pimâtisîwin. Due to colonization, the homes stopped reflecting the Moose Cree People and how they live.

Bohdana Chiupka-Innes is a Moose Cree woman and one of the few Indigenous intern architects in so-called Canada. She has dedicated her career to revitalizing her culture and ways of being through her work.

Bohdana is leading the ‘mînawâchihiwewi-ne-wîkiwan’ project alongside her Nation to bring ililiwi-pimâtisîwin back into community housing. The community of Moose Cree is well involved and has been engaged at every stage of this project, including its inception being grounded in the extensive engagement of the Community Comprehensive Plan.

Bohdana’s groundwork for this project was supported through Indigenous Clean Energy’s ImaGENation, a capacity-building program supporting Indigenous youth exploring clean and energy-efficient projects for their communities. This formed the basis of her master’s in architecture thesis from Laurentian University. She has been able to continue realizing her thesis work through her internship with J.L. Richards & Associates Limited (JLR) architecture firm. The Moose Cree First Nation Housing Authority, JLR, Bohdana and the Nation are working in partnership to create the MCFN Housing Prototype.

This first housing prototype was designed to reflect Moose Cree’s traditional structure of cook tents while achieving national Net-Zero Energy standards. It is now going through feasibility studies, modularization standards, and scalability assessments. This is the story of how one youth followed her community’s call to create a path towards living sustainably, with pride, together again.

History of the Moose Cree

Moose Cree People have lived on their traditional homelands for thousands of years in reciprocity with Mother Earth and the beings within her – ililiwi-pimâtisîwin (Cree way of life). Moose Factory Island has always been a gathering place for all families in the summer months.

The process of settler-colonization in Canada came hand in hand with the development of global capital markets. The Moose Cree Peoples and British settlers’ trading relationship led to the Hudson’s Bay Company establishing its second post in Moose Factory in 1673. The lands, waters, and animals that were harmonious in traditional economies were, for the first time, subject to the demands of European capitalism. This supply was only to be made possible by establishing legal practices to gain control over Aboriginally governed lands and resources. The Crown eventually dominated social, property, and land laws by legislating the “Indian Act” in 1876 – the only legislation in Canada that establishes rights and freedoms of an individual race, including property, and forced entire Nations into administrative, economic, and social boundaries of control.

The Moose buildings of the Land Cree remained tied to their homelands, despite residential schools and enforced resource control that occurred before the signing of Treaty 9 in 1905. This resulted in the Canadian government creating two reservations for the Moose Cree people. One of the reservations, 299 hectares in size, is located on Moose Factory Island, called ‘Factory Island 1’, and is where Innes’ Moose Cree First Nation relatives live today. The second, ‘Moose Factory 68’, is 17,094 hectares, and remains undeveloped on the east side of the Moose River 15 km south of Moose Factory Island.

The breakdown of the Moose Cree way of life

The loss of self-government forced Indigenous populations into inadequate housing in tiny reservation boundaries, often in random or unproductive areas that were not reflective of the Nations’ traditional usages. In addition, the designation of British crown lands and public lands allowed for active forms of legalizing land dispossession over traditional productive grounds and limiting traditional activities.

This new situation affected the boundaries of traditional harvesting economies and ways of life, forever changing the experience of quality of life and shelter that communities’ unique practices and knowledges were rich with. Traditional teachings and spiritual foundations of governance were lost, the Moose Cree way of life broken, and intergenerational trauma led to families becoming more and more interdependent on the new Canadian government and colonial way of life.

Having a home that reflects traditional lifestyles and values is essential to ensure that the infrastructure responds to real needs and is designed in relation to the environment, allowing for truly sustainable living.

Having a home that reflects traditional lifestyles and values is essential to ensure that the infrastructure meets real needs.

Canadian government-imposed housing and infrastructure resulted in inadequate environmental design, a lack of investment in quality materials, and a lack of incorporation of cultural-social aspects such as intergenerational living within the Moose Cree First Nation. This situation is prominent across the country as housing in Indigenous communities, due to colonially enforced housing standards, has become famous for influencing a lower standard of living and longevity, factoring health, infrastructural safety, unaffordability, and overcrowding.

The effects of colonization are still occurring today, as the Moose Cree people have suffered for many generations. Having a home that reflects traditional ways and values of life will help ensure that infrastructure meets real needs and is designed for the environment, therefore actualizing sustainable living.

Community Driven, Project-Based Innovation and Solution

Bohdana was supported to do this project through the ImaGENation program at Indigenous Clean Energy. ImaGENation is an Indigenous Clean Energy capacity-building program that supports Indigenous youth-led clean energy projects grounded in kinship, mentorship, and a shared energy future.With support through this program, she researched and designed a prototype net-zero home and housing development plan that responded to and built from her community’s past engagement findings of values, interests, and long-term goals. 

The Moose Cree First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP) is a living document created in 2018 that outlines the Nation’s future vision and strategy. The CCP engaged over 1000 community members through 57 community events. Bohdana Innes envisioned the ‘mînawâchihiwewi-ne-wîkiwan/Healing Our Home: buildings of the Land’ project to incorporate and connect to her Nation’s CCP.

• Okimawiwin (education): the prototype includes a cook tent to share traditional teachings around food sovereignty and a space for intergenerational education
• Milopimatisiwin (health): the cook tent offers family and community nourishment in addition to the environmentally-specific design of the home, which contributes to healthier and safer living
• Uski nesta ka itakwaki uskeek (land and resources): proposing a design that focuses on protecting the Land through Land-based activities to teach traditional harvesting
• Waakoomitowin (social): including appropriate spaces for traditional gatherings to heal and connect back with the community’s traditions, in addition to sizeable rooms designed for larger families
• Eshikeeshowaywin nesta atuskanaysiwin (language and culture): as language and culture allow the community to stay connected to their ancestors, the project creates an opportunity for language and culture teaching programs, in addition to language being embedded into the design and different elements of this project.
• Wâskâhikana nešta Ihtâwinihkewin (housing and infrastructure) – the Housing Design Prototype incorporates the Land and most importantly the Cree way of life.

The process of designing the project involved the community at every stage. Bohdana took a community-led approach, as illustrated in Image 2 below, which begins with understanding the land and history of the people and ensures those values are incorporated throughout the process. By involving every level of the community, from youth to carers to elders, in engagement and with guidance from an informed advisory board, the engagement timeline was enjoyed by feasts, gatherings, feedback discussions, and community governance activities. In this way, the home’s design revolved around community-centered solutions reflecting cultural values and traditional ways of life. The process of input is continued and living as the project gets further into feasibility studies, modularity production, and scalability development.

Net-Zero Standards: Moose Cree Community Housing Prototype

The prototype house will define a new construction standard for the community and within the Mushkegowuk area. This project was designed to test better building solutions for the environment, and will be moving into construction phases before the next housing development is built in the community.

The Moose Cree Housing Design Prototype incorporates the unique perspectives of Moose Cree People, reflecting their cultural values and traditional way of life. The prototype incorporates social gathering spaces such as the cook tent for traditional cooking and the garage for traditional harvesting activities, as shown in illustration 3. The house designs are adapted to different family sizes with a modular, multi-generational approach. For example, larger houses are accessibly designed to connect to elders’ suites for elders to be close to their families while living independently in extreme winter settings. 

The prototype design considers three different sizes of houses. The first design is a core home with a 2-bedroom unit for couples, singles, or small families that can be expanded as the family grows. The second design is a 3-bedroom unit, an extension of the core home with an additional room. Lastly, the third design is a 4-bedroom unit with an elder’s suite. This unit is designed as two separate spaces connected through a deck and a roof, making it one home. These three designs can be expanded or adapted as the family grows, because additional rooms or an elder’s suite can be added. Also, houses come with a detached garage for hunting and harvesting activities.

This home embodies the Moose Cree way of life through its connection to the land and the creations of Mother Earth. By reclaiming their culture and designing in harmony with the land, they are not only healing the families, but also the communities and the land itself.

This home embodies the Moose Cree way of life through its connection to the land and all of Mother Earth’s creations.

The prototype’s design elements integrate natural visual and energy-efficient design. While stylistically lending to the interconnection of the natural environment, it also incorporates energy-efficient design suited for heat fluctuations and weather patterns typically experienced by the northern community. It also incorporates materials from the Land and traditional construction methods, helping upskill the community while using renewable and local materials. 

The prototype house will be designed to Net-Zero Energy standards with passive design solutions to reduce heating and cooling within the home. The currently approved design consists of a single 2500 square-foot house with 4-bedroom units, which is 1900sf, and a kookum’s (grandma) suite at 600sf. The home’s construction includes increased R-values for the building envelope to meet Net-Zero Energy standards, a PV system, an air source heat pump with electrical backup for heating and cooling, a wood stove, an ERV ventilation system, and conventional wood construction.

This home embodies the Moose Cree way of life through its connection with the land, which is connected to all of Mother Earth’s creations. Bringing Moose Cree culture back and designing for the land, this work is not only healing families but also healing communities and the land.

Continued Scope of Work

Alongside her Nation, Bohdana will continue to build out her work in the community to meet housing demands for over 300 families. In the short-medium term, she will lead the carrying out of the following projects:

1. Modularizing the housing prototype for scalability for Moose Cree First Nation is essential to work to ensure affordability and replicability for housing in the community. The construction period for this prototype is May-October due to the community location and logistics. Additionally, this approach can train locals on how to build energy-efficient homes and can increase the local economy, which will create affordable homes.

2. Housing condition assessments of five existing houses and renovating two houses for energy efficiency. This will allow existing homes to be renovated to a more energy-efficient design.  Currently, we have a lot of homes that have unlivable conditions or need minor to major repairs.

3. Community feasibility study for Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE), which is 77 acres on Moose Factory Island. MCFN is anticipating the expansion of the reservation in 5 years.  The community plan will highlight commercial, institutional, residential zones, cultural areas (e.g. outdoor gathering spaces, cultural gathering spaces), and the scalability of the MCFN housing prototype project. The end document will be a feasibility study report. 

Due to the upfront community and land kinship work that Bohdana did, in addition to ongoing community planning led by the Nation, all of these projects are interconnected. This is what in-built sustainability planning and action look like. This approach takes time and demonstrates how time is essential to projects that uphold Indigenous, environmental, and human rights.

Youth-led Modelling Energy Efficient Community Housing Futures

Shelter is a basic need, and in so-called Canada, adequate housing is deemed a fundamental human right. The systems that are in place continue to create barriers and inaccessibility for Indigenous Nations to have housing rights met. As a country, and around the globe, there needs to be more equitable support, effort, and resources for Indigenous housing. Projects like Bohdana’s pave the way for housing projects that go far beyond baseline standards and create lasting and sustainable change for communities.

This is a living, breathing story of what is possible when Indigenous youth and communities are supported to lead and create their own versions of energy sovereignty. It highlights the importance of taking the time to ground the work in community, ceremony, and the land before, during, and after a clean energy project. This type of approach is inherently connected to the upholding of relational responsibilities, which ensure greater longevity for housing and infrastructure for future generations. Not only is this an example of a project with incredible impact, but it is also one that shows what is possible when communities are at the heart of their homes.

The post ‘mînawâchihiwewi-ne-wîkiwan/Healing Our Home: Buildings of the Land’ appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Indigenous voices have often been excluded from high-level negotiations that determine how resources are extracted and who benefits from them. For the industrial modern world, the green economy is a golden opportunity; for Indigenous Peoples, it is yet another existential threat wrapped in sustainability slogans.

The Just Transition and Indigenous Peoples Summit was a response to these challenges. This Summit marked a historic milestone as the first Indigenous-led gathering focused on reshaping the green economy. For the first time, Indigenous Peoples came together to set the agenda, define priorities, draw lines, and engage directly with global stakeholders on their own terms. Accordingly, they entered the discussion as recognized partners and rights-holders.

The Moment of Truth: Why this Summit was Critical

The concept of a Just Transition, broadly defined, aims to ensure that the shift away from fossil fuels does not exacerbate social inequalities. Yet, for Indigenous communities, the reality is that the green transition often mirrors past injustices. The mining of lithium, nickel, and cobalt—key materials for battery production—has led to land dispossession, environmental degradation, and the violation of Indigenous rights, as illustrated by the cases of Numu/Nuwu (Northern Paiute) and Newe (Western Shoshone) Indigenous Peoples in the United States, the Lickan Antay People in Chile, and the Indigenous village of Ust-Avam on the Taimyr Peninsula in the Russian Arctic.

Renewable energy infrastructure, including large-scale solar and wind farms, has been developed on Indigenous territories without adequate consultation or consent. The Sámi People’s struggle against wind farms has been emblematic in this respect.

The Summit became a defining moment—a test of whether the green economy can break from the past patterns or will be yet another expansion to re-discovered Indigenous lands. It marked a critical turning pointby shifting the conversation from one of recognition to one of concrete demands. Indigenous Peoples articulated a clear position: any transition that disregards Indigenous rights cannot be considered just.  This position is supported by international legal frameworks, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which enshrines the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a legal and ethical obligation.

The Summit: Key Milestones

The Summit was held over three days, and the work was organized as follows:

• Day 1: Setting the Stage – Representatives from seven regions outlined the current state of the green transition and its impacts on Indigenous Peoples. The discussions made it clear: without Indigenous leadership, the transition risks repeating the same extractive patterns of the past.
• Day 2: Solutions – Delegates shared models, case studies, and strategies for community resilience, strengthening Indigenous networks, and defining key demands for a Just Transition. The focus was not just on resistance but on building viable alternatives rooted in Indigenous governance and knowledge.
• Day 3: Global Connections – The summit culminated in high-level engagements with coalitions, UN agencies, and other global actors, ensuring Indigenous voices are embedded in decision-making spaces. Approval of the Outcome Document. The final discussions underscored the importance of securing a permanent spot for Indigenous Peoples in global decision-making on the green economy.

Summit Goals and Achievements

The Summit set out three core objectives. First, it aimed to consolidate the Indigenous movement on Just transition – a strong, unified network that spans continentsandstrengthens both national and international alliances. The second objective was to providea venue for direct engagement between Indigenous Peoples, global institutions, and major actors shaping the green economy, including: the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), the Global Battery Alliance and key corporate players,  the World Economic Forum, UN agencies, and international human rights and environmental coalitions. Finally, the Summit aimed to articulate a policy framework that centers Indigenous governance and consent in all transition-related projects.

These objectives were met with notable success through dialogues with the WEF, IRMA, the Global Battery Alliance, and UN bodies. These debates signaled a shift from superficial engagement to substantive discussions. While these discussions remain ongoing, the Summit established an essential precedent: Indigenous Peoples must not only be consulted, but fully engaged into decision-making processes at all levels.

Although the goal of the green economy is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, it still operates within a profit-driven paradigm that prioritizes resource extraction over environmental sustainability and social equity.

The green transition is not inherently exploitative, but its current trajectory is deeply misguided.

A central argument of the Summit was that the green economy, as currently structured, does not inherently resolve the systemic issues of resource extraction. While it aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, it still operates within a profit-driven paradigm that prioritizes resource extraction over environmental sustainability and social equity. The contradiction is apparent: a transition intended to mitigate environmental harm is, in many cases, reproducing it.

The summit’s discussions highlighted case studies where Indigenous communities have successfully resisted exploitative projects while promoting alternative models of development. For instance, Indigenous-owned renewable energy initiatives or projects developed in collaboration with Indigenous leaders, have provided viable models for responsible extraction. These examples underscore that the green transition is not inherently exploitative but that its current trajectory is deeply flawed.

A Seat at the Table and Outcome Document

The Summit was driven by a clear intention – to ensure that Indigenous Peoples not only secure a seat at the table but play a leading role in shaping the Just Transition. This requires moving beyond mere consultation toward genuine leadership, where Indigenous knowledge and rights serve as foundational pillars in the green economy’s future.

A major achievement of the Summit was the adoption of an Outcome Document: Principles and Protocols — Just Transition Indigenous Summit, which outlines key principles and policy recommendations that – if implemented – could reshape the structure of the emerging green economy. These principles and recommendations were published on the Summit website, and among them, we can highlight:

Legal enforcement of FPIC: Existing mechanisms for obtaining Indigenous consent are often circumvented or weakened through corporate and governmental loopholes. The document calls for binding legal frameworks that make FPIC a prerequisite for all extractive and energy projects affecting Indigenous lands and territories;

Indigenous-led governance models: Rather than treating Indigenous participation as a procedural formality, the document advocates for Indigenous governance structures to be embedded within regulatory and decision-making frameworks;

Economic equity in resource projects: The document rejects the dominant economic model in which Indigenous communities bear the environmental and social costs of extraction while receiving minimal economic benefits. Instead, it proposes revenue-sharing mechanisms and direct Indigenous ownership of energy and mining projects;

Recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems: The green transition must integrate Indigenous knowledge into climate adaptation and sustainability policies.

Moving Forward: Institutional Accountability and Indigenous Leadership

The Summit was not a conclusion, but a strategic intervention in an ongoing struggle. It served as a pivotal moment to realign priorities and forge new pathways for progress while acknowledging that sustained effort would be required. Key action points moving forward include:

• Strengthening Indigenous legal strategies: Indigenous Peoples will pursue stronger legal frameworks at national and international levels.
• Expanding Indigenous economic models: Community-led renewable energy projects and ethical resource governance initiatives will be prioritized to demonstrate alternatives to extractive practices. These models emphasize collective ownership, sustainable resource management, and long-term community benefits.
• Ensuring institutional accountability: Future engagement with global institutions will focus on holding actors accountable for their commitments to Indigenous rights. This includes advocating for compliance mechanisms that enforce ethical standards in the mining and energy sectors.

Conclusion: A Transition Without Justice is Not Sustainable

The Summit made one fact unmistakably clear: a just transition cannot be defined solely by environmental metrics; it must be evaluated in terms of social and political justice. A green economy that perpetuates land dispossession, weakens Indigenous sovereignty and prioritizes profit over rights is not a true transition—it is merely a continuation of existing power structures under a new name.

As the global community moves forward, there is an urgent need to shift from superficial commitments to enforceable and bold policies. The just transition cannot be reduced to a mere adjustment of energy systems; it must be a structural transformation that confronts and corrects the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Indigenous Peoples.

The Just Transition and Indigenous Peoples Summit was a step toward this goal, but its success will ultimately be measured by the extent to which global institutions and governments are willing to rebalance control and recognize Indigenous leadership. Without this shift, the promise of a green future will remain fundamentally compromised. The path forward depends on what we do next. And thanks to the Summit, we are ready.

For more information about the Summit on Indigenous Rights and the Green Economy, visit: www.indigenoussummit.org

The post Redefining Green: Outcomes and Reflections from the Summit on Indigenous Rights and the Green Economy appeared first on Debates Indígenas.