The global commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its pledge to “leave no one behind” has made it clear that those most affected by development decisions must play a leading role in shaping them, especially when their territories and livelihoods are at stake. Yet, around the world, local and Indigenous communities continue to experience the green transition as a vehicle for “green colonialism”, where human rights violations, land destruction and profit-driven motives persist, leaving justice behind.

The attention to Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the T20 Communiqué is thus more than welcome. This text proposes “fully safeguarding rights,” including communities’ right to give or withhold free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) – an established principle in international law. This recognition must now translate into concrete action. G20 leaders must promote, endorse and enact rights protection in their own countries and in the countries where their multinational companies operate.

Such actions are long overdue, given governments’ failures to legislate and regulate in ways congruent with Indigenous rights. A glaring gap exists between constitutional rights, policy ambitions and reality. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, largely sidestep Indigenous rights. In Brazil, the top-down implementation of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam, touted as a green energy project, proceeded despite Indigenous objections and warnings about its environmental consequences. The result? Devastating impacts on the Xingu River basin and a sharp decline in living conditions in Altamira – one of the worst in the country. These consequences were not only foreseeable but preventable had FPIC been respected.

These examples highlight the critical need for G20 leaders to prioritize Indigenous rights in their sustainable policies. New green projects financed by G20 development banks must not repeat these mistakes. Upholding Indigenous rights is not only a moral obligation – it is a pragmatic necessity for the success of the green transition.

The recommendations in the T20 Communiqué, though a step forward, do not go far enough. While the Communiqué acknowledges Indigenous Peoples as “vulnerable” and alludes to the democratic ideal of rights protection, it overlooks a crucial fact: Indigenous Peoples are not powerless. Around the world, they have successfully mobilized to stop, delay, or overturn licensing decisions on projects that threaten their lands and livelihoods. A truly rights-based approach is not only a matter of justice – it is in the strategic interest of governments and industries to avoid costly setbacks.

Indigenous Peoples, often in alliance with rights-based and environmental social movements, are increasingly using legal actions and public protests to push back against unsanctioned development. Behind closed doors, many investors have already withdrawn from transition projects after learning that Indigenous consent was not properly secured.

In Sweden, for instance, there are at least 42 ongoing court cases involving Sámi herding communities and land-use decisions. SEI research indicates that these legal challenges are prompting wind energy developers to seek Indigenous consent more proactively. Globally, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has tracked 60 legal cases against renewable energy projects, most of them brought by Indigenous communities. These legal challenges highlight a growing trend: failing to protect Indigenous rights not only undermines local communities but jeopardizes the success of the green transition itself.

To avoid further legal battles and ensure a successful green transition, G20 leaders, financial institutions and industry must establish robust regulatory and financial frameworks that guarantee Indigenous rights. This framework must include the following urgent actions: