- Irresponsible mining for critical minerals, like those used in renewable technologies, can threaten the existence of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, who are amongst the world’s most vulnerable populations.
- Companies like Tesla are considering no-go zones where uncontacted people live. While the idea of establishing these zones is increasingly pragmatic, the author says the most crucial thing for companies to do is conduct rigorous human rights due diligence from the initial stages of mine development right through to closure.
- Danielle Martin from the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) says this approach relies on the meaningful and inclusive engagement and the participation of affected Indigenous peoples. But for Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, engagement and participation may not be possible and agreement may not be attainable.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily Mongabay.
As the demand for critical minerals intensifies with the energy transition, the need for a rights-based approach to mining, focused on respect, is more relevant than ever.
This approach relies on meaningful and inclusive engagement and participation of affected Indigenous peoples’ in decisions about if and how mining should occur on their lands and how they share in the benefits. While obtaining agreement is often challenging, it is essential to build trust and ensure that development can occur without harm and in a way that local communities benefit.
But for Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, engagement and participation may not be possible, and agreement may not be attainable due to no-contact principles (potentially rendering inclusive engagement commitments like those set out in ICMM’s updated Indigenous Peoples and Mining Position Statement unrealizable).
Where does this leave responsible miners who remain committed to respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples? What careful considerations and alternative (sensitive) approaches are possible in such situations, especially where there is a lack of protections and legal safeguards that mandate these protections by the State?
Who are Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation?
The United Nations estimates that around 200 groups of Indigenous peoples currently live in voluntary isolation and initial contact. They are entirely dependent on their natural environment, meaning any changes to it could potentially significantly impact their survival.
Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation live without regular contact with mainstream populations, deliberately avoiding interaction with outsiders. Those in initial contact, meanwhile, are communities that have recently begun to interact with outsiders, often due to coercion or necessity. Both groups face profound vulnerabilities. External contact can introduce diseases to which they have no immunity and industrial incursions—whether for agriculture, tourism, or mining—can devastate the natural environments they have preserved for generations.
International human rights frameworks explicitly state that such communities are incapable of providing their agreement to projects affecting their territories. Accordingly, the principle of no-contact has become a cornerstone of their protection. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, for instance, recommends avoiding any interaction with Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact and respecting their right to self-determination and, therefore their decision to remain in isolation.
Why mining companies should support no-go zones
The idea of establishing no-go zones for mining where uncontacted Indigenous peoples live is increasingly pragmatic. Legal and reputational risks associated with rights violations can outweigh the short-term gains of resource extraction. Responsible miners are committed to respecting Indigenous peoples’ rights, and as consumers demand transparency and sustainability, businesses that fail to respect their rights may face backlash, reduced investment, or market exclusion.
Additionally, responsible mining companies know that when they conduct their activities responsibly and with respect, they can build positive relationships, advance shared aspirations for social and economic development, and prevent harm to Indigenous peoples impacted by mining operations.
Recent moves by major companies like Tesla to consider no-go mining zones in these regions do signal a shift in thinking. It also reflects growing consumer and investor demands for secure, responsible, and ethically sourced materials across the supply chain whilst underlining the risks of failing to protect and respect the rights of these vulnerable Indigenous communities.
As this shows, the energy transition offers a stark paradox: while transition minerals are critical to building a low-carbon future, their means of extraction must not exacerbate harms and sideline the rights of vulnerable groups. Moreover, we have the opportunity to ensure the energy transition advances the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.
Challenges in implementation
Many mineral-rich areas are governed by States with varying degrees of protections for Indigenous peoples’ rights or significant reliance on resource extraction for economic growth. Circling back to the question I have considered throughout this piece – is this approach even feasible and of serious consideration to the mining industry?
Coordination between governments, businesses, and Indigenous leaders is essential. Governments have a responsibility to enforce legal protections for vulnerable, isolated communities, including demarcating and safeguarding their territories.
Companies, on the other hand, must conduct rigorous human rights due diligence to ensure their operations do not infringe on the rights of Indigenous peoples’. This includes conducting comprehensive and appropriate mapping of lands, territories, and resources and their physical or cultural usage by all Indigenous peoples to identify potentially affected groups, especially peoples in vulnerable situations.
Coordination with States and other stakeholders early in project planning is important to identify all potential harms and risks. It also enables companies to explore alternatives to projects that could harm vulnerable populations. There is momentum across the mining industry to better integrate human rights due diligence practices so that the rights of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation are respected.
While the commitment to respect rights is unwavering, our understanding of how best to fulfill this commitment for Indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation and initial contact is emergent. Better guidance for companies is necessary, informed by Indigenous leaders, governments and skilled practitioners.
The energy transition presents an opportunity to redefine how development intersects with human rights. By centring the rights of those most vulnerable, we can move towards a future that is not only sustainable but also just.
Danielle Martin is the director of social performance at the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). The ICMM brings together a third of the global metals and mining industry for sustainable development. Danielle has previously worked in extractives for more than 20 years in the area of social performance, focusing on stakeholder engagement, community and economic development, and impact assessment and measurement.
Banner image: Members of Yuturi Warmi, originally from the community of Serena in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Photo: Yuturi Warmi Archive.
Photos: The lives and forests bound to Indonesia’s nickel dreams
Latest Mongabay podcast episode: How the Indigenous Shuar regained their ancestral forest. Listen here:
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
Credits
