Just for Some, Transition for Whom?
Indigenous Peoples Summit on Just Transition reflects on the Future of Territories and Rights in a Landmark Event in Geneva
By Edson Krenak, (Krenak, CS Staff)
Originally posted on Cultural Survival
In the territory of the Wangan and Jagalingou Peoples in Australia, there are springs that are considered sacred places. In his vigorous voice, Adrian Burragubba (Wangan) told us what they are facing: “This is the only source of water in our country that is eternal and continues to live and give life…so it’s essential to us to protect this place—because it is our dreaming, it’s our past, it’s our present, and it’s our future.” These words and cases of our relatives from Australia resonated with the experiences of many Elders and mothers from the Jequitinhonha Valley in Brazil, as well as the Uro families from the Lake Titicaca region in Bolivia. Water is sacred. It is essential for life and all species on our planet, and the places where this water nourishes and produces life are sacred for Indigenous Peoples. This sacredness can also be understood as essential for life.
Our communities and the health of our water sources are under overwhelming threat from the lithium mining boom in what has become known as the Lithium Triangle, a region spanning Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile that contains half of the world's lithium reserves. Lithium is used for the production of electric vehicle batteries, but mining in arid regions like these is draining ecosystems with devastating impacts on wetlands, lakes, and the Indigenous communities reliant on these water resources. The extraction process, particularly evaporating brine to isolate the lithium, uses vast amounts of water and threatens biodiversity and traditional livelihoods.
Similar stories of environmental exploitation brought together over 100 Indigenous leaders to attend the Just Transition: Indigenous Peoples’ Perspectives, Knowledge and Lived Experiences Summit, which took place October 8-10, 2024, in Geneva, Switzerland. The summit highlighted the importance of incorporating Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and solutions into the global energy transition. Indigenous representatives from the world’s seven socio-cultural regions emphasized that a rights-based approach rooted in self-determination, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and cultural and land rights needs to be at the center of the Just Transition. Indigenous Peoples must play a central role in the decision-making processes around energy and environmental policies to tackle the climate crisis we all find ourselves in.
The summit was critical in its examination of the historical exploitation of Indigenous lands by colonial powers and projects that are still impacting our territories. The ethos of extractivism, where large-scale mining is a fundamental practice of the current ‘Capitalocene’ or ‘Anthropocene’ era—the current geological era in which human actions risk environmental destruction to the point of endangering their own survival—serves as a vector of violence and rights violations against Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
From the Indigenous standpoint, a profound shift like to low-carbon, fully sustainable economies, and ambitious climate actions must have a rights-based approach. It must go beyond energy and economics—it must consider environmental impacts and address social costs, including the displacement of communities, loss of livelihoods, and exploitation of Indigenous lands for transition minerals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt. Indigenous advocates call for transformative action to address enduring colonial legacies and injustice, as well as to prioritize the restoration and healing of nature. From an Indigenous perspective, this transition must fully integrate environmental, social, and economic justice.
I will share key reflections, insights, and outcomes from the Summit, focusing on the central concept of a Just Transition from an Indigenous perspective.
I. Global Indigenous Advocacy
Rights violations occur not only in the so-called Global South, but also in northern regions like Sami territories, the Arctic, and Russia, affecting Indigenous populations globally. The Global North/Global South narratives are insufficient for Indigenous Peoples, as highly marginalized Indigenous communities exist in the Global North, too. The notion that large-scale mining, a major contributor to the environmental crisis, could be part of the solution is fundamentally flawed. Mining is a key driver of ecological degradation and perpetuates socio-economic injustices, prioritizing corporate and state interests over the rights and well being of affected communities. With transition mineral extraction emerging as a central focus of the green economy, the need to prevent history from repeating itself is critical. True transformation requires a rethinking of both the “green economy” and climate change mitigation projects to avoid past mistakes. The Summit’s focus on a Just Transition, rooted in the green economy’s pledge to “leave no one behind,” highlights the disconnect between traditional green economy frameworks, which primarily aim to reduce environmental risks and manage resource scarcities, and Indigenous narratives, which call for a deeper restoration of ecological and cultural relationships.
Indigenous perspectives emphasize not merely mitigating risks but rebuilding harmony between people and ecosystems, caregiving and caretaking, and values of sustainability, cultural rights, and traditional practices. This perspective challenges conventional approaches to a green economy to evolve beyond resource management toward a restorative, inclusive model that respects Indigenous sovereignty and community-led solutions.
When we talk about ‘leaving no one behind,’ Indigenous Peoples are also including our non-human relatives. The Indigenous Peoples Principles and Protocols for Just Transition specifically reference “our interconnected ecosystems that encompass, but are not limited to, savannas, rangelands, grasslands, mountains, lagoons, deserts, highland deserts, islands, rivers, lakes, oceans, creeks, springs, air, glaciers, ice, forests, and the subsoil. These elements form a holistic web of life, sustaining biodiversity.”
It is a failure that the narratives of this new ‘green’ economy prioritize technological and market-based solutions while not fully accounting for the social impacts, such as displacement of communities, loss of livelihoods, and continued exploitation of Indigenous lands for resources like lithium or cobalt. A Just Transition must be transformative to deal with the heavy colonial legacy and injustices we see on the ground.
To navigate this context of colonial mindset, the geopolitics of supply chain and militarization, and new legal frameworks, the Indigenous rights movement channeled through the Summit stipulated the goal of empowering Indigenous participation and amplifying Indigenous voices in international decision-making forums, particularly within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and related UN bodies, along with other aspirations, including:
Establishing criteria for a rights-based Just Transition. The rights-based approach can only be built with a critical review of what a Just Transition is for Indigenous Peoples, which we discuss later in this text.
Solidifying solidarity across Indigenous groups globally. We understand that our ties to the land and to our Mother Earth unify us and our duty to steward and protect biodiversity.
Amplifying Indigenous voices in international policy making is particularly key at the United Nations Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and in other international platforms where States and industry discuss and form policies and decisions that affect us, without us. Indigenous advocacy is about amplifying our stories, restoring our territories, and reclaiming our right to political, economic, and legal participation.
This event was crucial to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are not merely consulted, but actively lead the global shift towards sustainable energy, advocating for an inclusive approach that respects Indigenous territories and knowledge systems. Representatives of Indigenous Peoples from all seven of the world’s socio-cultural regions, despite their countries already being part of international and national frameworks aimed at protecting Indigenous rights, combating racial discrimination, or achieving Sustainable Development Goals to alleviate poverty, consistently see their rights disregarded.
Our participants mentioned the following concerns:
The increase in violence and criminalization of Indigenous Peoples defending their lands and rights is a critical issue, especially as they resist extractive industries and harmful development projects. Indigenous defenders often face intimidation, legal persecution, and even murder for their efforts to protect their territories from environmental destruction, posing a grave threat to their lives and communities.
Indigenous sacred sites and cultural heritage face growing risks of desecration or destruction, often due to insufficient legal protections or lack of genuine consultation in decision-making processes. We have heard stories from Puerto Rico, Brazil, and other countries about this issue. These sites hold immense spiritual and cultural significance for Indigenous communities, and their preservation is key to maintaining cultural integrity and sovereignty.
The lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders, often failing to secure their Free, Prior and Informed Consent. This includes weak policy frameworks to support FPIC. Because of this, relationships between State and privately-owned companies and Indigenous communities are often unequal and fail to provide tangible benefits for the communities.
Unequal and non-beneficial relationships between extractive companies and Indigenous Peoples. The need for sufficient support and funds for social and political organization and capacity-building within Indigenous communities has created asymmetries in information and expertise, leaving Indigenous organizations at a disadvantage when engaging with extractive companies in discussions of impact, mitigation, and compensation.
Insufficient financial support for Indigenous communities. Communities are left with limited options for employment, economic autonomy, and development. Consequently, these communities are facing heightened social vulnerability, increasingly restricted access to their land, and inadequate protections due to imbalanced power dynamics.
Lack of investment in opportunities for Indigenous-led economic activity outside the mining sector. The loss and environmental impact, combined with significant underinvestment for Indigenous-led economic activities, limits their potential for real sustainable development. There are no greater stakeholders in a land than those who have lived on it for centuries. Indigenous-led development projects safeguard their cultures and take full responsibility for their environmental stewardship through appropriate technologies in small-scale energy projects. As one example of community-based, community-owned technology development and economic empowerment, our relative from Borneo, Joe Baxter Bernard, presented the project “CREATE Borneo,” a village-based workshop and training facility educating the next generation of Indigenous engineers in renewable energy technologies. The program allows Indigenous communities to develop and harness their resources on their own terms while incentivizing environmental stewardship.
The persistent need for recognition and integration of Indigenous knowledge in environmental planning and monitoring diminishes the effectiveness of holistic approaches to land stewardship and puts livelihoods at risk. Solutions deeply rooted in sustainable practices and a healthy environment are often disregarded. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge is essential for creating more balanced, culturally respectful, and environmentally sound strategies.
Large-scale mining contradicts the Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting temperature rise and enhancing adaptation. Because Indigenous Peoples are among the first to face the direct consequences of climate change due to their dependence upon, and close relationship with, the environment and its resources, a call for reduced consumption and genuine commitment to sustainable climate action is essential.
II. The Just Transition Is Undermining FPIC and Self-Determination
Community leaders, Indigenous youth, and Elders criticized the hollow promises made by States and transnational mining companies about obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous communities on three fronts:
Before the Consultations
During the Consultations
After the Consultations
These claims show clearly that big mining projects often lead to environmental degradation, loss of livelihoods, and cultural dislocation, resulting in social conflict. Social conflicts in this context can lead to violence against communities, criminalization of environmental defenders, and reputational risk and financial loss to companies and States. However, these conflicts are always multifaceted and have economic-ecological, spiritual-cultural, and legal-political dimensions. Economically, big mining degrades local ecosystems and disrupts access to natural resources, while culturally and spiritually, it imposes a worldview incompatible with Indigenous and local communities by disrespecting sacred sites and religious ceremonies. Legally and politically, it challenges who has the right to make decisions about the land, accumulating rights violations according to national and international laws.
One leader from India shared the horrifying situation of Indigenous Peoples in their country. The implementation of so-called "green laws" with fraudulent environmental clearances favoring mining operations is severely undermining the rights of Indigenous communities in the Manipur region. This has led to devastating consequences, with approximately 200 people killed and over 70,000 displaced, including at least 10,000 children. Indigenous villagers, who lack detailed knowledge of the mining plans, were never consulted, nor was their Free, Prior and Informed Consent sought. The absence of their meaningful consultation and participation further confirms the violation of their rights, as these extractive activities proceed without their approval or consideration of the environmental and cultural impacts on their lands.
III. The Just Transition is Mineralizing and Militarizing Nature
Mineralizing the policies
From the Americas to Asia and Africa, from the deep ocean to the arctic lands, corporations deploy sophisticated strategies under the guise of corporate social responsibility to gain acceptance from local communities and authorities. This often includes building small schools, healthcare clinics, and sports facilities, the promise of jobs, and sponsoring local events— generally creating a "mineralized" social environment where populations are gradually forced to adapt to mining operations and the violence and negative impacts they bring.
Our partners and friends from Argentina and Brazil have been using the concept of "mineralization," referring to the neo-forms of old practices of colonization of Indigenous lands, cultures, bodies, and emotions. The impact of big mining is so huge and the weakening of their rights and respect so deep that it inculcates them to tolerate violence and degradation to live in conditions of poverty and sadness. Indigenous Peoples, Quilombola communities, and other local traditional populations lived for ages in equilibrium and reciprocity with nature, our Mother Earth. The transition to industrialization and urbanization has had no positive outcomes for them.
Not only EVs, but killing drones
Indigenous Peoples have long denounced mining as a war waged on their worldviews, lands, resources, and lives, resulting in both ecocide and genocide. The notion that transition minerals are solely for clean energy, computers, smartphones, and electric vehicles is dangerously misguided. The escalating militarization of the search for these minerals fuels the military-industrial complex and competition, contributing to violence, destruction, and catastrophic wars worldwide.
Petuuche Gilbert is an elder of the Eagle Clan from the Acoma Pueblo and a renowned storyteller and activist. For decades, he has tirelessly advocated against nuclear waste storage on Indigenous lands, speaking out for the protection of sacred sites and environmental justice. His wisdom and leadership among the Summit delegates contributed to the denouncement of the military’s use of Indigenous lands. Gilbert explained that every military drone and bomb has a bloodline from extraction to explosion. In 2023, the market for these weapons was valued at approximately $14.2 billion. For context, the electric vehicle market was valued at $500 billion with expectations to increase around 32% by 2032 (see 1, 2, and 3 below).
The extraction of transition minerals from Indigenous lands and territories is not solely intended for the shift to a low-carbon, environmentally sustainable industry and equitable society; it is also fueling the escalation of wars and the military industrial complex. Consequently, the concept of a Just Transition, which emerged from local and national concerns for justice and environmental protection, is falling short. Global climate justice and nations' responsibilities to meet their climate commitments cannot be achieved if significant portions of their budgets and industries are invested in the ‘necropolitics’ of war (policies and systems that prioritize profit or power to the detriment of humans and the environment). Such an approach not only pushes poorer countries and communities further behind, but also spreads severe environmental impacts across multiple levels. The expansion of new policies, technologies, and markets, repeats colonial patterns of extraction by feeding the demands of profit, war, and power, rather than fostering genuine sustainability.
The costs associated with military spending on transition minerals used in weapons and defense technologies are not adequately explained, leaving gaps in public understanding of their true financial and environmental impact. In the current war on Gaza, for example, Israel has dropped more than 70,000 tons of bombs on the Gaza Strip since October 2023, exceeding the World War II bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined, according to a rights monitor. And recently, Al Jazeera revealed UK and US involvement in Israel’s war on Gaza and Lebanon via 6,000 military flights in a year, with the true cost and the amount of minerals used unknown. The military's increasing use of transition minerals leads to more resource extraction on Indigenous lands, and historically has undermined the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights while eroding their sovereignty.
Big Tech is also selling war. Amazon provides cloud infrastructure through Amazon Web Services (AWS), which is used by government and defense sectors for data storage, intelligence, and analytics, which can support military operations in conflict zones. Microsoft, Google, Intel and NVIDIA are also behind the most sophisticated technologies of the apartheid in Israel and discrimination and genocide in Palestine, Ukraine, and other conflicts. Indigenous Peoples know firsthand the consequences of the surge in demand for Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones) for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and combat operations. Transition minerals are critical for these military technologies, and their extraction leaves a trail of blood, devastation, and environmental degradation. A global map of drone usage highlights the nations most heavily reliant on these minerals for warfare, revealing the scale of destruction embedded in the quest for resources. Indigenous Peoples have been fighting this war for centuries—a war that not only destroys nature but weaponizes its resources against life itself.
IV. The Geopolitical Game: Just for Some, Transition for Whom?
The single biggest threat of the so-called Just Transition is actually two-fold. First, globally, under the flag of the ‘green’ economy and ‘clean’ energy, it creates a new social, political, and judicial framework that divides civil society, pitting some sectors against Indigenous communities by eroding their capacity to resist and use established legal mechanisms such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ILO Convention 169, and FPIC, among others, and opening up their territories for an accelerated race to extract their non-negotiable resources such as water, food systems, and sacred sites. The SIRGE Coalition, Cultural Survival, and others have shown this in the context of the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Critical Raw Materials Act, and cases involving the Sami People, Argentina, and Brazil, as but a few examples.
Secondly, with local civil society divided and anti-Indigenous governments boosted by new legislation, the violence of big mining increases locally, especially with more invasive extraction technologies for rare minerals, lithium, and graphite fracturing communities. This division weakens collective resistance, facilitating easier access for mining corporations to exploit natural resources. In places like India, the African continent, and Argentina, Indigenous leaders are frequently criminalized and their communities forced to move. In other places such as Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, and South Africa, water pollution and scarcity have deeply disrupted Indigenous Peoples’ livelihoods, and many of them have been forced to abandon dead zones.
The combination of political marginalization, lack of legal protection, and economic interests places Indigenous lands at greater risk, transforming their territories into sacrifice zones where short-term profits take precedent over long-term sustainability and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Meanwhile, in rich countries, electric cars have multiplied in the streets and the consumption of mineral-dependent electronics like smartphones and computers has skyrocketed.
In this geopolitical landscape of energy transition, there is no Just Transition. For instance, in Brazil, the mineral sector's trade balance has shown a surplus of more than $68 billion, with exports totaling $225.3 billion since 2019. The mineral sector contributed to 28% of exports, with iron ore (which is also used in the energy transition to produce cars, large plants, and heavy machinery) accounting for 83% of mineral extractive industry exports and representing 15% of the country's total exports. Major buyers include China and Europe. While these nations advance their developmental agendas, the communities living in mineralized territories remain impoverished with limited access to public policies and justice.
In 2021, the number of people living in poverty in Brazil reached a record high of 62.5 million (29.4% of Brazil's population), the highest level since 2012. According to World Bank criteria, of the 62.5 million, 17.9 million people were classified as “extremely poor.” The proportion of children under 14 living below the poverty line reached 46.2%, also the highest percentage since 2012. The Northeast (48.7%) and North (44.9%) regions had the highest proportions of people living in poverty—regions that also export minerals, including transition minerals, timber, gold, and food. This is the transition of rich countries, which is unjust for everyone.
Not coincidentally, the Northeast and North regions are home to the majority of the country’s Indigenous Peoples (63%), and more than 87% of the country's mining activities. (This statistic includes the state of Minas Gerais and the Jequitinhonha Valley, where transition minerals like lithium and graphene are extracted.) These regions are deeply affected by mining, which often leads to environmental degradation.
In the past seven years alone, mining companies like Vale, Anglo American, Belo Sun, Potássio do Brasil, Mineração Taboca and Mamoré (both from the Minsur Group), Glencore, AngloGold Ashanti, Rio Tinto, and Sigma Lithium have received over $70 billion in funding from Brazil and abroad. These companies run aggressively misleading sustainability campaigns promoting Corporate Social Responsibility and adherence to mining standards. Vale, Anglo-American, and Sigma Lithium participate in climate change and environmental events where they falsely claim to be partners of Indigenous Peoples. However, in the territories where they operate, we witness the devastation caused by their investments.
V. Columbus’ Last Voyage: the Climate Crisis
Indigenous Peoples have no armies and no weapons; we pose no risk to humanity. Our ways of life do not harm Mother Earth. Our activities do not contaminate rivers, do not remove mountains, do not take down forests. Indigenous Peoples at the Summit were highly concerned about how the mining sector and States are addressing the climate crisis in relation to the goals of the Paris Agreement, which prioritizes limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and enhancing efforts for climate adaptation. However, large-scale mining contradicts these goals, especially for transition minerals like lithium and cobalt. Mining activities often result in deforestation, biodiversity loss, and the destruction of ecosystems, which are vital for carbon sequestration and climate resilience. Therefore, the emissions from mining operations, as well as the environmental degradation caused by these activities, undermine global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change instead of mitigating it. Indigenous communities emphasize that true climate action requires reducing consumption—not creating and multiplying goods—and showing real commitment to sustainability.
Key areas of concern include adaptation (Art. 7), where the agreement calls for strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity. But how can communities adapt if their territories are under attack? Another area is loss and damage (Art. 8), referring to the negative impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events. But again, big mining increases similar impacts in areas already dealing with severe losses and damages.
The logic driving uncontrolled extractivism within the so-called green economy is deeply intertwined with the historical and colonial mechanisms of capitalist production. The dependence on the resources of Indigenous lands all over the world to fuel the capitalist centers located in Europe, the United States, Japan, Germany, and China, to mention the key players, is a huge problem. Alternative ideas such as economic de-growth, circular economies, systematic reuse and recycling, and a transformation in how we relate to nature—essential notions for moving beyond capitalism—are rarely discussed or supported. The unequal transfer of wealth, resources, and minerals from the global periphery to the centers perpetuates injustice and reinforces the illusion that the planet can be saved from multiple crises.
This extractivist paradigm, which spreads injustice and poverty, remains hegemonic worldwide. The “extractive commodity and merchandise society,” as Yanomami shaman Davi Kopenawa calls them, is characterized by inequality and exclusion, contradictions, and degradation, failing in both its imagination and its responsibility to future generations. They are not acting as good ancestors, and the next generations will hold us accountable for this.
VI. How We Move on from Here: An Indigenous Peoples’ Principles and Protocols for the Just Transition Is a First Step
The discussions held over three days closed with an outcome document, Indigenous Peoples Principles and Protocols for Just Transition, including the following points:
Indigenous Peoples reject "green" projects imposed without consent and proper consultation. These “green” projects lead to land displacement, environmental degradation, and violations of Indigenous sovereignty. Indigenous representatives called for recognition of their knowledge, governance systems, and sustainable practices, asserting that the current model of Just Transition perpetuates neoliberal exploitation and deepens inequalities. A true Just Transition must be led by Indigenous Peoples in their lands and territories, grounded in respect for Mother Earth, and focused on ecological and cultural sustainability.
Indigenous Peoples' vision and definition of a Just Transition encompasses actions and a future where principles and protocols guide the world toward healing from environmental crises. Our vision seeks to restore harmony with the natural world and to uphold the inherent role of Indigenous Peoples in protecting the spiritual, cultural, social, and economic well being of our regions, from the womb of Mother Earth to the stars.
A true Just Transition involves global solidarity, sharing knowledge, and fostering Indigenous solutions. It enhances biodiversity, combats desertification and ice melt, and restores lands and waters, benefiting all life on Mother Earth.
A genuine Just Transition requires a radical transformation of economic systems that exploit nature. Current models driven by transnational corporations and States perpetuate neoliberalism and deepen inequality, leading to both genocide and ecocide.
Our principles to guide this Just Transition are: Right to Life; Self-Determination and Sovereignty; Decolonization; Reparations and Land Back; Respect for Indigenous Ways of Life; Transparency and Accountability; Full Protection of Environmental Defenders; Indigenous Stewardship; Maintain 1.5 Degrees; and Rights-based Supply Chains.
These principles ground the core tenet of Indigenous Peoples and members of the SIRGE Coalition, which includes Cultural Survival, Batani Foundation, First Peoples Worldwide, Society for Threatened People, Earthworks, and the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). The current global advocacy work to ensure that Indigenous communities have the right to provide or withhold consent for any mining activity and that FPIC principles are embedded in mining law is critical for protecting Indigenous rights. We believe that empowerment through knowledge and resources is a foundation for self-determination and sustainable engagement with external stakeholders.
Indigenous Peoples and their organizations reject the green economy as currently implemented, viewing it as a form of rebranded colonialism that perpetuates environmental exploitation and marginalization. True Just Transition requires transformative changes to economic systems, prioritizing Indigenous sovereignty, biodiversity protection, and ethical participation in decision-making, particularly through Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Anything less reinforces historic injustices, deepening social and environmental inequalities.
We call on States, industry, civil society, and all stakeholders to fully embrace accountability for the well being of our planet, ensuring the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights and the future of the next seven generations. True Just Transition can only be achieved through collective responsibility, recognizing Indigenous leadership to fully contribute to a fair, just, and sustainable world—because there is no other path that truly leads to life.