Green transition or green colonialism?

Welcome to Now and Then, a podcast from the Stockholm Environment Institute. SEI is an international nonprofit research and policy organization that tackles environment and development challenges. With eight centers spread across five continents, we connect science and decision-making to develop solutions for a sustainable future for all. Discussions will be centered around our three focus areas, reduced climate risk, sustainable resource use and resilient ecosystems, and improved health and well-being. Guests will include SEI staff, partners, policymakers, researchers, among others. This podcast will reflect on how the decisions made over the coming five years will determine mankind's living conditions for decades ahead. My name is Sylvia Marcinkevichute and I am a project communications officer here at SEI. In this episode, we will explore climate justice, green colonialism and just transitions, and what that means for indigenous peoples in northern Europe. Climate inequality can manifest itself in different ways. The richest 10% of the world's population is responsible for 48% of global emissions, compared to only 12 emitted by the poorest half. Inequality is also apparent when it comes to the consequences of climate change, with those in the global south bearing the brunt of the floods, droughts, fires, and other extreme weather events that are more frequent and more devastating than in the global north. Being the stewards of up to 65% of the world's land, local and indigenous populations are some of the most exposed not only to climate change, but also to its mitigation. The issue of indigenous lands that have been taken away from the communities that inhabit them has been persisting for centuries, but new pressures are being placed on the remaining lands in the name of green transition. Indigenous lands are rich in minerals necessary to transition away from fossil fuels, and the lands that are managed by indigenous people are also often rich in biodiversity, crucial for climate mitigation. However, indigenous peoples struggle with recognition of their knowledge, needs, and rights. I ask the netlough and Laura del Ducca, a CI researcher is working on rights and equity issues, what climate justice and just transition mean in this context. When we talk about climate injustice, we mean that we analyse for whom this process is unjust, and we identify how we can dismantle the systemic and structural causes behind this. We think about climate injustice, we think about different things, we think about recognition justice, which is about acknowledging that there is differential harm, and we think about spatial justice, we think about injustices across communities and countries, or we think about distributive justice, about who will cut down emissions and who has the burden to do the growth, for example, and I'm really interested in temporal justice, so intergenerational justice over time, so this is about past ongoing and future injustices. I think one important thing is as well, it's easy not to lose track and talk only of climate justice or just transitions, because these issues, just like Laura says, they're embedded in all of these relations of power and what has already happened also in the past, so the communities that already groups, people's communities that already are marginalised, they will also suffer the greatest harms, so we need to understand these contexts as embedded in larger structures, but also in terms of environmental, it's also about environmental justice more broadly, so you can't really separate the climate justice, but what is interesting when you talk about climate justice and environmental justice and just transitions is that there are also contradictions and tensions in between where the sort of transitions also exert a pressure and may have negative consequences that tend to sort of hit those that also are marginalised and most opposed already to climate change impacts, and this is precisely what we see are happening now, for example, in Southme, the homeland of the Sami people. The Sami are the indigenous populations of the Sapmy region spanning the northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia, reindeer herding and husbandry, Sami people's traditional means of livelihood, requires vast areas of land which is at risk from among other things, growing pressures from mining and wind farm projects in the name of green transition, but the shiny green surface of climate transitions might hide climate colonialism and centuries-old injustices. What herding is practiced over a large track which means they need a lot of land at your disposal, and with sort of the change that we see in climate, we also know that the need for a more diverse, varied and functional land is in fact increasing, so you need more land now and tomorrow and in the years to come, then you've sort of needed before, just to balance a lot of these negative impacts that we can see are quite likely to happen as a consequence of climate change, so it's this sort of this double pressure, not only are you suffering the consequences of climate change, but this land is also assumed to provide Sweden, Norway and Europe with sort of a green production of energies, and this is sort of just one among a lot of industrial developments. We have the mining situation as well, we have this race for critical minerals, but of course a lot of this is also located on the Somilands. Yeah, so Annette and I work on how transitions can be just for all, Annette with a strong focus on indigenous peoples and land, and need more with a focus on gender and social justice, and one of the projects I'm working on is this mining on Somilands in Sweden, where mining is being framed positively as green transition, but it's actually also an example of an unjust transition. It's an example of ongoing green colonialism in Sweden where the foreign appropriation of land and resources for environmental purposes results in unjust development. Sweden is perhaps, many people don't think that Sweden has been colonized, but also many people don't know that there are actually two peoples in Sweden. We have the Sami, we're an indigenous people and they also have the Swedish state. And contrary to many other parts of the world, where there's been sort of a more intense period of colonization, a certain point in time, we can talk about the blue water colonization, for example, where the colonizer came over the water and then they sort of arrived in America and they discovered these lands, right? Obviously, that's not what happened, but that's how we talk about it. But this has not played out in the same way in Sweden. It's been there's more a slower ongoing process. There's sort of a different understanding and recognition about colonization in Sweden and in Sakmi. Sakmi is the homeland of the Sami people who are people that exist in what is now for different countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia. But we need to, now we started talking about green colonialism, but in order to understand green colonialism, we also need to understand the historic conditions that have led up to the present. And what we have is the centuries of state where the Nordic states have ruled and sort of claimed slowly the Sami land and have had sort of more slowly ongoing colonization process. Most recently, Norway was at the center of controversy over green colonialism, where protest were held against the building of wind farms on Sami lands in Fosen, despite the country's Supreme Court's ruling that this violates human rights of the Sami people since it would disrupt reindeer hurting activities. Also Lausanne Blind, Vice President of the Sami Council, has shared her perspective on the case and on what climate justice means for the Sami peoples. Well, if we start with the notion of sustainability and just transition, I'm not sure that it means that the meaning is that different from Sami perspective, then it is in another context because as I see it, the just this part of it is to have the balanced influence and that the rights and interests of different groups and different peoples are taken into consideration when decisions are being made, so that the priorities are included and I would say that that's what is the unjust in the situation we have today, that I don't see that those aspects are taken into account, actually. And do you see any avenues that exist to actually be included in those processes to actually make them just, is there a way to have influence over that? Well, this is really complex because I also know that Annette and Laura, they touched upon the structures and the unequal power balance due to the history of colonization and the current ongoing structures that we still live with and this makes this very complex because when it comes to including different perspectives, my view is that the only way of actually doing that is to include people with different perspectives and when we look at the situation in Sweden and also in other parts on Sakmi, the Sami people living as a minority can never have that equal influence and equal voice of our perspective and equal participation in the national systems. We are as people always in a minority when it comes to us in numbers but when we then start to talk about the status of Sami as an indigenous people as a people, we have the right to be treated as equal partners and the discussions and the processes should be designed as a discussion between two peoples, and this is non-existent, I would say, in Nordic system, but we need to balance these power structures because when living in as a minority, we can never air our concerns equally in the national systems and this needs to be adjusted but I would say that the recognition of this, it's not there, where the Nordic states are not there. When we look at the differences, I would say that Norway has at least taken the step of recognizing that Norway is founded on the territories of two peoples, Sweden do not even say that and to my knowledge, not inland either and that recognition is an important step. Norway as being one of the countries as opposed to Sweden and Finland recognizing that it's based upon two peoples, Norway has been recently in the news accused of green colonialism for the building of wind farms in Forson on indigenous land, what was your perspective on that? Well, the Forson case is an interesting case because it raises so many of these aspects. In one hand, as you say, we can define it as green colonialism because when we talk about green colonialism, it's a highlighting that the so-called green transition of today are based on priorities of majority society and since these societies, Sweden or wave in land, haven't cleaned up in their own colonial history and with not doing that, they haven't broken those colonial structures, adjusted these power balances. So that means that they still exist. We can see them surfacing and we see them more clearly in these areas of conflict in perspectives and conflicts in priorities between the Sommi people and the majority society. So the development of the green and renewable industries, it's one of those that we can see that from a Sommi perspective, it's of course positive that we can find renewable sources. But when it comes to the Sommi traditional livelihoods as reindeer herding, frankly, it doesn't really matter if it's a wind mill power plant or if it's a new railroad. What it means is that it destroys pastulans, it destroys the foundation on which we base our culture and our traditional roots. So in that perspective, it's still damaging. Other labeled green or not, colonialism and various transitions causing harm to marginalized communities are not exactly new. Their historical precedence and these processes are embedded in long-standing power structures, although new issues do come to light. Well, in a way, I wouldn't even say that transition is new because already in sort of during World War II, we had this rapid expansion of hydropower in Sweden where we needed to fuel the country with cheap energy. And also this sort of the hydropower has already sort of been the backbone of the Swedish green energy system for almost the past 100 or for the past 100 years. But back then already, this was considered this sort of urgent issue and an rapid transformation that we needed for the sake of the country. But already back then, of course, it was a lot of reindeer herding land and Sommi land and some communities that were being flooded and who were not compensated for the land or the negative impacts that they suffered. So in a way, it's also history repeating itself. Also in terms of an energy transition, it's not even a new issue. So the question is, of course, what can we learn from the past and make sure that we don't repeat the same mistake again? That is really important and one thing that I think is new now is that we start asking who's knowledge counts in those processes and we start thinking about epistemic justice. And that's actually something that we work on in the impacts of mining projects, because the policies are based on science, so you need to kind of figure out what is scientifically in the first place. And indigenous research methodologies are often not considered objective and scientific enough, also just because it starts with a lot of knowledge not having a reference attached to it or then there's the kind of head and money of English, a lot of knowledge is not in English. When we talk about, we need more knowledge, which have also been highlighted in the Fouzen case. The question has said that we need a better knowledge base for our decisions. Those with decision-making power can decide what knowledge to base the decisions on. They can decide what knowledge is prioritized and what is relevant. When we hear the way that we talk about these knowledgees, the parallel knowledge systems, it's an example of how the Swami people society, our knowledge and our priorities is set aside as an add-on, as something to inform the real decision-making kind of foundation. It's politics. It's a value-based decision on what's prioritized and what is not. The Fouzen case is also really interesting when we talk about human rights because the Fouzen case is also putting to the test actually the fundamental system of the nation-state and the rule of law because what it actually is an example of is that the region's Supreme Court have ruled that this windmill park, the concession is illegal because it violates indigenous rights, it violates the right to culture. So it clearly says in the verdict that it's a violation of human rights, but the Norwegian government chooses not to respect this verdict. So this puts to the test the fundamental structures of our society. What this is actually highlighting is that this is not a case of Swami rights, it's not only a case of indigenous rights, it's a broad example of what happens if the states can pick and choose if governments can pick and choose what verdict from their own court systems to respect or not, whose rights are then put aside the next time. So this is actually a test to the Norwegian government and Norway as a state and not only a case of Swami rights, whose knowledge counts, whose values are prioritized and whose included in decision making are big questions and the answer has implications not just for any single government, nation or people, but for democracy as such and the respect for human rights within it. So what needs to happen in order for democracy and human rights to be upheld in sustainability transitions? What needs to happen is that Swami representatives and Swami representative bodies needs to be included in policy processes and in decision making and what we need is the full and effective participation because I'm convinced that no one else can take into account our perspectives. We can't ask someone to consider us, that's not equal and that's not equity. We need to have our own representatives bringing forward our priorities. And it needs to be in processes designed to participate on equal level. So I go back to the notion of two peoples because that's the core. We are now still seeing as an interest group, but we are not a group with certain interests. We are rights holders and representatives of other people. And we can see that there have been small steps taken. Of course we have the Swami parliament. The Swami parliament have very little room for making their own decisions and I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's an informal self-determination since it's so strictly controlled by the state. That it's not actually green or just if human rights are violated doing it and that the priorities are chosen. And I think that when we talk about this transition that we all know needs to happen to have a future of a more sustainable society and everyone will need to make compromises. And everyone will need to adapt and we are adapting as we speak. The core is that if we are to say that it is green and just, then we need to balance the field so that also Swami priorities can be taken into account and there also needs to be compromised from the other side. It's time and time again that one group takes the decision-making power over another group and decides that the Swami priorities are not important enough. Swami culture is not important enough and Swami traditional livelihoods, our economies that we base our society on are not important enough. And that is that power relation needs to be adjusted. And it will be very difficult to produce a transition that is equally just to all and doesn't just sort of reinforce the inequities that we have already produced in the society that we have. So I think that's one of the key points that we have, right, that it's not possible to do a transition that is sustainable or that is perceived as just if you do not take these already existing vulnerabilities and inequities to heart and start with that, like it needs to begin with that. And this was also recognized in the IPCC report where they say that, you know, we need to understand adaptation and sustainable adaptations in this context. It needs to address these power relations. It needs to address inequities, marginalization, et cetera, but it's also in the end in terms of distribution, like what is desirable and not and that is always value-based. That is always political. So that's also about making a transparent. When we, when we're faced with a situation where not all actors can benefit equally or where some people, some values must be lost, then it needs to be much more transparent how those decisions are made. And that's also where we said one of the tools that we use are rights-based approaches. You can't think of rights-based approaches as sort of a red line, so that certain, we're not willing to sacrifice certain things and violating, for example, established human rights is one of those. I would hope that more people start understanding climate and environmental changes as social and political struggles in addition to the environmental and economic problem that dominates the current discourse and that this is followed by political will also. One thing is perhaps also in what we've seen in our research is that now when we talk about transitions, we talk about adaptation in a way that is imagining the future. So rather than being reactive, which we see a lot of the actual adaptation measures are and we talk, we forward, for example, its urgency of a wind of power or critical minerals then when something is urgent, you have a tendency of pushing through and then perhaps sort of skipping some of the other principles that tend to be important, for example, democratic principles in terms of who is included in decisions and who is heard and how consequences are measured. For example, there was a reason sometimes that decisions need to take time, and this is one of the key tensions here, I think, because now a lot of these issues are in fact urgent, but we can't let the urgency let us overrule a lot of other urgent democratic matters. We also try to work with different methods that sort of the future is not just something that happens, it's something that we create right here right now with the decisions that we make. If we actually start acknowledging that we actually have the power in a way to imagine better, more just, iniquitable futures, but then we also need to be willing to take the measures even though they may be very difficult, that is needed to take us there. Thank you.