{"id":26552,"date":"2025-11-07T12:00:33","date_gmt":"2025-11-07T11:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=26552"},"modified":"2025-11-10T09:43:47","modified_gmt":"2025-11-10T08:43:47","slug":"mining-the-green-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/mining-the-green-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"Mining the Green Deal"},"content":{"rendered":"

In January 2023, the mining company LKAB announced<\/a> the discovery of Europe\u2019s largest deposit of rare earth elements in Kiruna, northern Sweden. LKAB\u2019s CEO described this as<\/p>\n

good news, not only for LKAB, the region and the Swedish people, but also for Europe and the climate. This is the largest known deposit of rare earth elements in our part of the world, and it could become a significant building block for producing the critical raw materials that are absolutely crucial to enable the green transition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet, this euphoric discourse was not shared among all Swedes. In particular, its indigenous S\u00e1mi population<\/a>, on whose traditional lands most mineral deposits are located, have expressed strong opposition to the mining of rare earth minerals:<\/p>\n

Here in Brussels, you talk about the Green Transition, but for my people, this Transition is not Green – it is black. The Green Transition is a threat to our existence! We are losing the land and nature we have protected for so long.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This blog post explores how, in Sweden, green transition mining encouraged by the European Union (EU) often prevails over S\u00e1mi rights, despite growing international recognition of the human rights violations involved. Although Sweden is a party to several human rights instruments, its reluctance to fully recognize S\u00e1mi land rights has resulted in permissive corporate mining policies on the ground. At the same time, the EU seems hesitant to establish strong internal indigenous rights protections and not bound to respect S\u00e1mi rights on a treaty basis. Hence, this post calls for a more robust and explicit integration of indigenous rights into multilevel legal frameworks shaping corporate green transition mining.<\/p>\n

A Green Transition Built on S\u00e1mi Land<\/strong><\/p>\n

In its 2019 Green Deal<\/a>, the EU developed a novel growth strategy and pathway to climate neutrality. Five years later, the Union aimed to fill economic gaps left by its climate policies through its Green Deal Industrial Plan<\/a>, of which the 2024 Critical Raw Materials Act<\/a> (CRMA) forms a key legal component. The CRMA seeks to \u201censure the Union\u2019s access to a secure, resilient and sustainable supply of critical raw materials\u201d needed to build green technologies (Article 1(1) CRMA<\/a>). It aims to do so by supporting strategic mining projects and stepping up domestic extraction to produce at least 10 % of the Union\u2019s annual consumption of strategic raw materials (Articles 1(2)(a) and 5(1)(a)(i)<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In line with the Union\u2019s ambitions, Nordic countries have taken the lead<\/a> when it comes to mining within the EU, with Sweden specifically looking to become the \u201cEU’s leading mining nation<\/a>.\u201d Yet, Sweden\u2019s mining operations disproportionately impact<\/a> the country\u2019s S\u00e1mi population, Europe\u2019s only indigenous people<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The S\u00e1mi<\/a> live in the Arctic regions of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Russia, where a part of them depends up until today on reindeer herding, arts and crafts, fishing, and hunting. While these activities are vital to provide their subsistence and pass their culture and language<\/a> on to next generations, industrial projects in the region pose serious threats to the viability of their land-connected lifestyle. Indeed, mining in particular is fragmenting and polluting<\/a> S\u00e1pmi to such a degree that it can barely co-exist<\/a> with reindeer herding in area.<\/p>\n

Green Transition Mining: A Source of Indigenous Rights Violations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The impact of green transition mining on S\u00e1mi rights has been recognized by multiple international human rights bodies. In a 2020 opinion<\/a>, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) stated that Sweden violated the prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to property by not \u201cadequately or effectively consulting\u201d a reindeer community before granting mining concessions (\u00a7\u00a76.12, 6.22, 6.24). The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR<\/a>) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC<\/a>) issued similar opinions concerning a Finnish S\u00e1mi community.<\/p>\n

The Advisory Committee<\/a> on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) has also recognized that \u201ca number of obstacles restrict the effective participation of Sami in consultation processes\u201d in the context of mining projects (\u00a7\u00a737, 104). It further emphasized that \u201cif S\u00e1mi people\u2019s control over their traditional lands is not sufficiently protected, the S\u00e1mi culture will be under threat.\u201d (\u00a7105)<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur<\/a> on the rights of indigenous peoples has stated that Sweden\u2019s systematic prioritization of mining over S\u00e1mi rights \u201cis not in line with the international human rights obligations and commitments that the State has assumed with respect to indigenous peoples.\u201d (\u00a745-46) In the same vein, the CESCR<\/a> has recommended that Sweden guarantees free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and establishes compensation mechanisms for development projects impacting S\u00e1mi land, such as green transition mining (\u00a7\u00a710, 14, 15d, 18, 19d). Indeed, this advice aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP<\/a>), which provides for FPIC of communities \u201cbefore adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.\u201d (Article 19)<\/p>\n

Sweden\u2019s Incomplete Implementation of Internationally Recognized Indigenous Land Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The human rights violations mentioned above may come as a surprise, given Sweden\u2019s excellent human rights record<\/a> and significant progress in protecting indigenous language rights (see<\/em> here at \u00a7100<\/a>). Since 1977, Sweden has recognized the S\u00e1mi as an indigenous people<\/a> with the right to self-determination<\/a>. Furthermore, the Swedish Constitution mandates the State to promote S\u00e1mi culture and social life (Chapter 1, Section 2<\/a>). In line with this goal, the S\u00e1mi Parliament<\/a> was founded in 1993 to safeguard S\u00e1mi cultural autonomy.<\/p>\n

Yet, as the Advisory Committee<\/a> on the FCNM has recognized,\u00a0 the State has a more troubling record when it comes to recognizing the right to self-determination, as well as land and consultation rights (\u00a7102). Originally, S\u00e1mi lands were designated as state property<\/a>, with specific use rights for reindeer-herding S\u00e1mi. Since the mid-20th<\/sup> century, the Swedish S\u00e1mi have pursued legal recognition of their land rights, inter alia, <\/em>through several court proceedings. In the Taxed Mountain case<\/a> (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that S\u00e1mi rights had constitutionally protected usufruct rights that cannot be taken away without compensation. These rights have been further refined in two other cases. In the 2020 Girjas decision<\/a>, the Supreme Court ruled that a S\u00e1mi community had exclusive hunting and fishing rights. Whereas,\u00a0 in the 2018 Talma case<\/a>, the District Court of Stockholm affirmed that prohibiting S\u00e1mi communities from using their ancestral lands breached their right to property in a discriminatory way. This jurisprudence has yet to be incorporated<\/a> in the 1971 Reindeer Husbandry Act<\/a>, despite a parliamentary review process launched five years ago to revise it (see<\/em> here<\/a> \u00a797). Moreover, sectoral mining policies<\/a> do not reflect S\u00e1mi land entitlements, as impact assessments<\/a> often remain inadequate and consultation rounds flawed (see<\/em> here<\/a> \u00a738), resulting in the above-cited indigenous rights violations.<\/p>\n

At the international level, the country\u2019s recognition of indigenous land rights is also rather limited. Sweden did not ratify<\/a> the ILO\u2019s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169<\/a>, as it opposed its provisions on land rights<\/a>. The country did vote for the UNDRIP<\/a>, but qualified<\/a> its support by clarifying that in Sweden, self-determination takes shape through consultations with a representative indigenous body, not through veto rights. In addition, it claimed that the UNDRIP\u2019s land rights were already implemented in the State\u2019s reindeer legislation.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Sweden ratified several general human rights conventions that create international oversight of its indigenous rights policies, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR<\/a>, see <\/em>Article 27 on minority rights<\/a>), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR<\/a>, see <\/em>Article 15 on cultural rights), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD<\/a>, see <\/em>here<\/a>), the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM<\/a>), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR<\/a>, see <\/em>Article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination and Article 1, 1st<\/sup> Additional Protocol on the right to property).<\/p>\n

The EU\u2019s Legal Blind Spots on Internal Indigenous Rights Protection<\/strong><\/p>\n

S\u00e1mi rights are also insufficiently protected under the law of the EU\u2014an institution that considers itself \u201cas legislator for part of the European Arctic\u201d<\/a> and stimulates mining in S\u00e1pmi through its industrial-climate policy. First, despite a proposed amendment by the Parliament<\/a>, the CRMA does not mandate FPIC<\/a> throughout the fast-tracked minerals extraction it provides for. While strategic projects shall respect \u201chuman and indigenous rights\u201d and guarantee \u201cmeaningful engagement with local communities\u201d (Articles 6(1)(c), 7(1)(d)(j); Annex IV, 2(b)), Annex IV, 2(b)<\/a>), the assessment of this condition seems to be based on national legal standards, as long as they align with the (very generally formulated) UNGP and OECD Guidelines (Annex III.5<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Similarly, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D<\/a>), which requires companies to prevent, mitigate, end, and remedy their human rights impacts (Article 1(1)(a), 8-12), only refers to indigenous rights and FPIC in its recitals (\u00a7\u00a733, 65). Moreover, its list of human rights conventions does not include indigenous rights instruments such as the UNDRIP or ILO Convention 169 (see<\/em> Annex Part 1(2)). This lacuna renders the CS3D ill-equipped<\/a> to counter the adverse impacts of EU-stimulated mining projects.<\/p>\n

Third, the only explicit EU-level recognition of S\u00e1mi rights\u2014the Protocol No. 3<\/a> on the Sami People to the Accession Treaty of Sweden\u2014merely recognizes the Member States\u2019<\/em> S\u00e1mi rights obligations under (inter-)national law (Preamble \u00a71) and authorizes the issuance of exclusive reindeer herding rights<\/a> (Article 1). By contrast, it does not mandate the Union itself to respect indigenous rights.<\/p>\n

Fourth, although the EU has convened several Arctic Stakeholders\u2019 Forums and Indigenous Peoples\u2019 Dialogues \u2014 most recently the 7th edition in 2025<\/a>\u2014 it still lacks a structural internal indigenous rights policy<\/a>. This stands in stark contrast with the Union\u2019s external<\/a> approach, which actively promotes indigenous rights, including the FPIC<\/a>. Indeed, the EU strongly advocates for indigenous rights in its development cooperation instruments, publicly supported the adoption of the UNDRIP<\/a>, and actively participates in the UN Permanent Forum<\/a> on Indigenous Issues.<\/p>\n

Fifth and finally, it is hard to maintain that the Union is generally bound by international indigenous rights law. While EU acts must be interpreted in accordance with the treaties the Council ratifies following Article 218 TFEU<\/a>, the Union is not a party to any such agreement in the context of indigenous rights. For other international legal sources, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in the case of Poulsen<\/em><\/a> that the Union must \u201crespect international law in the exercise of its powers,\u201d\u00a0 but has only applied customary law (e.g., Racke<\/em><\/a> \u00a745<\/em>) or general principles of international law (e.g., Commission v Germany<\/em><\/a> \u00a730<\/em>). Thus, whether the EU is legally obliged to observe internationally recognized S\u00e1mi rights remains unclear.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: Towards Multilevel Protection of S\u00e1mi Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

Green transition mining in Swedish S\u00e1pmi is the European manifestation of a global environmental injustice phenomenon. 54% of green transition minerals<\/a> are located in or near the territories of indigenous and peasant communities, a reality that\u00a0 carries a disproportionate environmental impact on these populations.<\/p>\n

This blog post has drawn on the practice of international human rights bodies to argue that indigenous rights standards, including the FPIC, must be guaranteed in the context of green transition mining. First and foremost, land and participation rights must be reformed at the Swedish level. Yet, the EU must also do its part to guarantee S\u00e1mi rights in the multileveled policy governing green transition mining activities in Sweden.<\/p>\n

In particular, the EU should consider the FPIC as a binding standard for mining corporations in the CRMA and CS3D. Furthermore, amendments to Protocol No. 3 that mandate European respect for indigenous rights would provide a firm basis for a full-fledged EU indigenous rights policy and more impactful involvement of indigenous representatives in EU climate and industrial policymaking.<\/p>\n

Still, it seems unlikely that these reforms will gain traction at a time when competitiveness and defense<\/a> (another industry hungry for minerals) dominate the EU agenda. However, it is only by taking concrete measures towards indigenous rights compliance in multilevel mining policy that the EU can stay true to the objective of its Green Deal<\/a>: achieving a climate transition that leaves no one behind<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In January 2023, the mining company LKAB announced the discovery of Europe\u2019s largest deposit of rare earth elements in Kiruna, northern Sweden. LKAB\u2019s CEO described this as good news, not only for LKAB, the region and the Swedish people, but also for Europe and the climate. This is the largest known deposit of rare earth […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[7781,7782,7780],"authors":[7779],"article-categories":[3572],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-26552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-critical-raw-materials-act","tag-green-transition","tag-indigenous-rights","authors-charlotte-dierickx-visschers","article-categories-symposium"],"acf":{"subline":"Indigenous Rights and Climate Policy in Multilevel Conflict"},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20251108-141505-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26552"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26552\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26560,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26552\/revisions\/26560"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26552"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=26552"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=26552"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=26552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}