Beyond Human Rights: Why Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Must Be Central to the Energy Transition and Beyond
“How can we claim to build a sustainable future while ignoring the rights of the very communities who have safeguarded our planet’s most vital ecosystems for generations?”
Our systems of production, consumption, and governance have driven us to an unsustainable and crisis-prone state. For decades, the externalisation of social and environmental costs has fuelled economic growth at the expense of marginalised communities and the planet itself. This includes violating Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, which are essential pillars of justice and sustainability (Scheidel et al., 2023).
The energy transition, an urgent and necessary undertaking, exemplifies these systemic failures. While it promises to address the climate crisis, it also brings the risk of replicating extractive and exploitative practices if Indigenous Peoples’ lands and rights are not explicitly protected. If we fail to embed Indigenous Peoples’ Rights alongside general Human Rights frameworks, we risk perpetuating inequities and undermining the sustainability of our systems as a whole.
Human Rights frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were born out of a post-war context that prioritised individual freedoms and equality. Although groundbreaking for advancing human dignity, these frameworks often failed to account for the collective rights and governance systems integral to Indigenous Peoples’ societies (Hendry & Tatum, 2016).
This oversight is deeply rooted in historical colonial frameworks, where governance systems often centralised control over land and resources in the hands of states and private entities, marginalising Indigenous Peoples. These colonial structures prioritised resource extraction and assimilation, erasing Indigenous stewardship practices that had sustained ecosystems for generations (Singh & Gacek, 2022).
Over time, governance systems at national and international levels continued to centralise land and resource control, sidelining Indigenous Peoples’ practices of stewardship and intergenerational equity. For much of the 20th century, Indigenous Peoples were not formally recognised as “Peoples” under international law, limiting access to collective rights like self-determination (Hendry & Tatum, 2016). To this day, states often invoke “territorial sovereignty” to justify resource extraction, sidelining Indigenous Peoples’ governance and diminishing their autonomy (Ceballos & Petit, 2012).
Evolving International Frameworks: Progress and Tensions
International frameworks addressing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights have advanced their recognition and protection in meaningful ways. Foundational instruments like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO Convention 169) emphasise:
● The right to Self-Determination and Land Rights, recognising Indigenous Peoples’ governance systems as essential to sustainable land management and cultural preservation.
● The right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), ensuring that Indigenous Peoples’ communities can meaningfully participate in decisions affecting their lands, territories, and resources.
The rights of Indigenous Peoples are also reflected in the core human rights treaties:
● The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) uphold the right to self-determination (Article 1), enabling Indigenous Peoples to shape their development and identity. The ICCPR additionally protects minority rights to culture, religion, and language (Article 27) and prohibits discrimination, ensuring equitable treatment.
● The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) fights racial discrimination and ensures equality in laws and practices. CERD’s body of jurisprudence suggests that FPIC is always triggered by extractive projects which could affect Indigenous Peoples' rights or interests (CERD 1997).
The corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, includes the obligation to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the principle of FPIC. Even though these instruments are not legally binding, they are considered as morally binding (UNGA 2013, OECD 2023).
While international frameworks have made significant progress in recognising Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, their implementation often struggles due to a lack of advances in legally binding measures. This gap has led to a reliance on voluntary mechanisms such as certification schemes, which have gained popularity in industries like forestry, mining, and agriculture as tools to promote responsible practices. These schemes aim to raise awareness and encourage companies to adhere to social and environmental standards. However, their voluntary nature limits their effectiveness in providing consistent and enforceable protections for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (Franken and Schütte, 2022). Certification schemes operate on a “we encourage” basis, often relying on corporate goodwill rather than imposing binding obligations. Even though these schemes may support incremental improvements, they cannot substitute for legally binding frameworks that hold companies accountable (Kemp et al., 2020; Murguia & Bastida, 2024).
One of the most recent advancements in the area of legally binding frameworks is the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The directive requires companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts across their value chains, transitioning from voluntary measures to mandatory obligations by requiring companies to address human rights and environmental impacts across their supply chains. While it represents progress by referencing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in recitals 25a and 44c, experts such as the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), Human Rights Watch, and SIRGE Coalition emphasise the need to explicitly integrate Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, including FPIC, into the enforceable provisions of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, moving beyond references in recitals to ensure meaningful protections.
Despite the progress in recognising Indigenous Peoples' Rights through international frameworks, real-world implementation often lags behind. At a recent Indigenous Peoples' summit, leaders from across the globe called for the urgent respect of their rights, highlighting that many energy transition projects are advancing without their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). They denounced ongoing violations, including land encroachments, resource extraction, and cultural disruption, which starkly illustrate the gap between policy commitments and on-the-ground realities.
Why Human Rights Frameworks Are Not Enough
When we think of Human Rights issues like child labour, the moral clarity is often immediate—exploitation of children is universally recognised as unacceptable, and the remedies are well-defined within legal and ethical frameworks. Yet, when it comes to Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, the understanding is far less widespread. Few people grasp the difference between respecting general Human Rights and the specific collective and territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights differ in scope, focus, and collective nature. Human Rights are universal, protecting individuals through freedoms such as the right to life, equality, and speech. Still, they often lack mechanisms to address collective concerns. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, by contrast, recognise the unique cultural, historical, and territorial contexts of Indigenous communities. They focus on collective rights to land, territories and resources, self-determination, and cultural preservation.
Respecting Human Rights while neglecting Indigenous Peoples’ Rights might uphold individual rights but will fail to protect Indigenous cultures, leaving them vulnerable to extinction. This oversight risks cultural survival, ecocide, and the destruction of governance systems that have sustained some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth.
Imagine a scenario where an infrastructure project, like a pipeline, is proposed on lands with significant cultural and environmental value to an Indigenous community. The community raises concerns, organises protests, and files legal challenges, demonstrating their rights to freedom of association and judicial protection are upheld. These rights allow them to gather, voice opposition publicly, and seek legal remedies in court. However, their sovereignty and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) are not protected under national law, so this right is not upheld and the project proceeds, threatening water sources and sacred sites.
The Sámi Peoples of Sweden, for example, face ongoing struggles to protect their traditional reindeer herding lands. While their cultural rights are formally recognised, the Swedish government has not ratified ILO Convention 169, leaving their territorial rights and FPIC unprotected. This gap reflects how states can respect Human Rights in a limited sense while failing to ensure the specific rights essential for Indigenous Peoples’ survival (Bituin, 2021).
This is particularly alarming given that the world’s approximately 476 million Indigenous Peoples represent over 5,000 distinct cultures, each embodying invaluable knowledge and traditions that contribute to humanity’s resilience (UN, 2022). Losing this diversity would not only erase these cultures but would also undermine the world’s ability to adapt to future challenges. As humanity faces unprecedented crises, cultural and ecological diversity is more critical than ever. Diversity fosters resilience, and resilience is essential for our survival in a rapidly changing world.
Indigenous Peoples, though making up only 6.2% of the global population, steward about 25% of the world’s land—including many of the planet’s most vital ecosystems. Their territories are crucial carbon sinks, storing at least 24% of above-ground carbon in tropical forests, and are home to a significant share of global biodiversity (Reytar et al., 2024). Nevertheless, 54% of energy transition minerals are located on or near Indigenous lands, placing these communities at the frontline of both climate solutions and impacts.
Ignoring their rights leads to severe consequences. Environmental degradation often follows projects that bypass Indigenous governance systems, as unsustainable practices disrupt ecosystems and intensify deforestation (Scheidel et al., 2023). Violations of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights also erode their social and cultural structures, resulting in the loss of invaluable cultural heritage (Gilbert, 2017). Alarmingly, violence against Indigenous environmental defenders is on the rise, with 43% of the 196 defenders killed in 2023 identified as Indigenous (Global Witness, 2024).
Without explicit safeguards for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss risks failure. Recognising and protecting Indigenous governance systems is not only an ethical obligation but a strategic imperative for ensuring planetary resilience.
Explicitly recognising and ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, beyond the broader scope of general Human Rights, is essential for creating a sustainable, just and equitable future. This requires not only addressing systemic gaps but also taking focused action in key areas to align governance and industry practices with principles of justice, equity, sustainability, and Indigenous self-determination. Three critical actions are:
Mandatory Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)
FPIC must be legally mandated across all sectors, ensuring that Indigenous Peoples have a decisive role in decisions affecting their lands, territories, and cultural heritage. Accessible grievance mechanisms and robust systems for redress are vital to upholding this standard.Legally Binding Protections
Voluntary initiatives are insufficient. Strong, enforceable frameworks like the CSDDD must explicitly integrate Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, holding companies and governments accountable for compliance through transparent oversight and enforcement.Cultural Preservation and Land-Related Community Rights
Policies must prioritise the preservation of Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage and governance systems, alongside recognising their rights to land and resources. Protecting these rights is essential for maintaining biodiversity, combating climate change, and ensuring the survival of Indigenous ways of life.
Authors:
Yblin Román Escobar, SIRGE Coalition
Galina Angarova, SIRGE Coalition
Tabea Willi, Society for Threatened Peoples
Silvia Schönenberger, Society for Threatened Peoples
Noreen Quadir, SIRGE Coalition