60th session of the Human Rights Council Annual half-day panel discussion on the rights of Indigenous Peoples Theme: Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of a just transition to sustainable energy systems, including in relation to critical minerals Madam Chair, Excellencies, Dignitaries, Indigenous Sisters and Brothers, Sewaro! Greetings in Limbu language. How can anyone sleep at night while on a mission to observe a conflict between a community and a hydropower company in a village threatened by floods on one side, massive landslides on the other, and ongoing landslide activity nearby—all triggered by the reckless construction of a so-called clean energy project? Why would anyone willingly endure such trauma, facing “green colonialism” in the name of a just transition? I spent one night in such conditions in the Yakthung Limbus village. For community members, this is their daily reality. They have nowhere else to go to escape this life-threatening situation. As a practicing lawyer, I have serious doubts about labeling hydropower projects as “clean energy” in the context of justice and equity, especially regarding the idea of a just transition in Nepal. Gross human rights violations—including denial of the right to information, militarization, intimidation, land grabbing without Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), forced eviction, torture, and denial of access to justice, fair compensation, and benefit sharing—are all justified in the name of development. Most hydropower projects are located on Indigenous Peoples’ territories, serving as both means and ends of colonization. Nepal’s so-called just transition is, in reality, an unjust, racist, Brahmanist project that continues to undermine Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty, self-determination, autonomy, and customary self-governance, while grabbing our lands, territories, and resources without our free, prior, and informed consent. Is this justice? Absolutely not. It is a million-dollar question: Is there any space for justice when Indigenous Peoples are forced to live at gunpoint? How can our communities survive when hydropower projects destroy our sacred mountains, rivers, forests, heritage, and entire civilizations? When we raise our concerns, no one listens. When we protest, we are criminalized—charged with offenses like “criminal mischief” under Section 285.3(c) of the Criminal Code Act 2017. Right now, nine Yakthung (Limbu) youths are facing trial in the District Court of Taplejung for organizing a peaceful protest to protect their sacred sites and collective rights at the Upper Tamor Hydro Project. The legal process is so costly that, sooner or later, they may be forced to sell their land just to pay for their defense. There has been some progress. In the case of Dutta Sing Basnet vs. Government of Nepal and Prime Minister et al. (074-WO-1031), the Supreme Court issued a Mandamus requiring the government to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), ILO Convention 169, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Right to Development. The judiciary has played a constructive role in making Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) mandatory for resolving conflicts between Indigenous Peoples, the government, and hydropower developers. The Supreme Court of Nepal has interpreted FPIC, in line with UNDRIP, as legally binding for development projects, including so-called clean energy projects. Yet, it took seven years to reach this decision, and the environmental damage and injustices were never fully addressed. This shows that the Indigenous justice system—rooted in our own customs and stewardship—can sometimes be more effective than the state system, offering a broader space for peaceful, just solutions and the real implementation of FPIC. The negative impacts of renewable energy projects, especially hydropower, are overwhelming. These projects often result in the loss of ancestral lands, sacred sites, traditional livelihoods, and self-governing institutions. Beyond these immediate harms, they also intensify the risk of violent confrontation between Indigenous Peoples, government authorities, security forces, and business enterprises. Hydropower and other large-scale renewable energy developments frequently proceed without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of affected communities. This disregard for Indigenous rights leads to forced displacement, environmental degradation, and the erosion of cultural identity. Rivers are dammed, forests are cleared, and entire ecosystems are disrupted—undermining the spiritual and material foundations of Indigenous societies. Moreover, the influx of external actors and militarization around project sites often brings intimidation, surveillance, and criminalization of Indigenous leaders and human rights defenders. Promises of benefit-sharing and local development are rarely fulfilled, leaving communities marginalized and excluded from decision-making processes that directly affect their futures. In many cases, these so-called “green” projects replicate patterns of colonialism and exploitation, prioritizing profit and national interests over the rights, wellbeing, and survival of Indigenous Peoples. The cumulative effect is not only environmental and social harm, but also a deepening of historical injustices and inequalities. Before colonization and Brahmanization, Indigenous Peoples in Nepal practiced some of the best models of stewardship and governance. But for the past two and a half centuries, colonizers, racists, and Brahmanist systems have brought misfortune and dispossession. International investment banks and development partners often support these harmful projects, ignoring Indigenous rights. As a result, there are almost no examples of successful partnerships between Indigenous Peoples and renewable energy developers. One rare exception is when the Finnish government withdrew millions of dollars in support for a dumping site in Tharu Indigenous territory after it was found to violate Indigenous rights, including FPIC. Encouragingly, more and more Indigenous Peoples are demanding that the government, businesses, and international partners comply with FPIC during the so called just transition, in line with UNDRIP, ILO Convention 169, and CEDAW General Recommendation No. 39, as well as the Supreme Court’s directives. However, States and bussiness actors often distort or evade FPIC, making its meaningful implementation a herculean task. The Path Forward: From Principles to Practice There is an urgent need for binding policies and guidelines to require Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all projects that directly or indirectly affect Indigenous Peoples, their lands, and territories, in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The question remains: how do we make this a reality? The recommendations I present here are deeply informed by, and firmly aligned with, the principles and outcomes of the International Summit of Indigenous Peoples and Just Transitions. The Summit brought together Indigenous leaders and communities from around the world to articulate a shared vision for a just transition—one that centers Indigenous rights, knowledge, and leadership. By grounding our actions in these recommendations, we can move from principles to practice and ensure that the just transition is truly just for Indigenous Peoples and for all. Recommendations: In the context of just transition, royalties from hydropower projects and climate funds are often misused by governments, leaving affected Indigenous Peoples excluded. There is a need to design separate mechanisms for royalties and benefit-sharing that directly reach Indigenous communities. Given the involvement of the Nepal Army, Armed Police Force, and civil police in protecting hydropower projects, regular human rights audits of these security forces should be conducted. Restrictions on participation in UN Peacekeeping forces may be considered for countries violating Indigenous rights. UN agencies should carry out annual FPIC audits and provide recommendations to governments. UN agencies should provide regular training to judges and lawyers in Nepal to ensure recognition and respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including FPIC and land rights. Compliance by state actors should be motivated by genuine respect for rights, not fear. FPIC audits by UNOHCHR can help foster a culture of hope and accountability. UN agencies should regularly organize academic conferences on key themes such as FPIC, self-determination, and customary self-government systems to create an enabling environment for the meaningful implementation of rights enshrined in UNDRIP. It is essential to recognize Indigenous justice systems and stewardship, governed by customary traditions, practices, and laws, to combat climate disasters, ensure a just transition, and promote equity. The following measures should be undertaken to safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ rights within the context of a just transition: Ensure rights to self-determination, autonomy, customary self-rule, FPIC, custodianship of lands, territories, and resources, and other rights in constitutions, laws, policies, plans, and programs at all levels. Ensure direct representation and participation of Indigenous Peoples, including Indigenous women, in the formulation of policies, plans, programs, strategies, projects, budgets, research, monitoring, and evaluation of just transition initiatives. Promote solar and wind renewable energy projects that fully comply with UNDRIP. Return lands to Indigenous Peoples that were taken by the government without obtaining FPIC. Establish mandatory FPIC protocols and mechanisms for all projects related to just transition, including those funded by international development partners. Interpret international and national laws relating to the environment, UNDRIP, and ILO Convention No. 169 as binding, not merely as soft law. Watch video
