What does a just transition look like for Indigenous Peoples?

Written on 04 July 2025. Posted in News

BY GALINA ANGAROVA AND YBLIN ROMÁN ESCOBAR FOR INDIGENOUS DEBATES

At the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai, the world’s governments declared the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era, a symbolic milestone framed as a global turning point. But for Indigenous Peoples, that phrase invites a deeper question: Is this the beginning of the end of the extractive model that has long targeted their territories, or the beginning of a new and intensified pressure on the ecosystems and cultures they have safeguarded?

The “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era phrase signalled a long-overdue consensus on phasing out fossil fuels but failed to confront the underlying economic model driving both climate breakdown and environmental injustice. The dominant solution proposed for the climate crisis is a shift to renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles (batteries), which depend heavily on mineral extraction.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Galina Angarova (Buryat), Executive Director of the SIRGE Coalition, brings extensive experience in Indigenous Peoples’ rights and environmental advocacy. She previously led Cultural Survival and held roles at the Swift Foundation, Tebtebba, and Pacific Environment. Galina has represented Indigenous Peoples at the UN on sustainable development and climate finance, and holds an MPA from the University of New Mexico.

Yblin Román Escobar (Kolla-Quechua descent) is a Policy Adviser at the SIRGE Coalition, advocating for Indigenous Peoples' rights in EU and international policy. She lectures on Sustainability at VIVES University College and is affiliated with Ghent University, where she specializes in Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment. She holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Toxicology and a Master’s in Environmental Sciences from Ghent University.

Cover photo: SIRGE coalition meeting in the Atacama Desert, Chile. Photo: SIRGE

Tags: Indigenous Debates