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. Dozens of isolated Indigenous Mashco Piro men and boys on a beach in the Peruvian Amazon. Image courtesy of Survival International. Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation live without…This article was originally published on Mongabay
The post Should mining companies consider no-go zones where isolated Indigenous peoples live? (Commentary) first appeared on EnviroLink Network.