Community Ownership of Renewable Energy: How it Works in Nine Countries

The challenges and opportunities for local and indigenous ownership of renewable energy are manifold. But if we are to avoid the situation that arose with local communities being marginalised and excluded from the benefits of locally sourced fossil fuels, we must ensure a just transition into the low carbon economy. This means giving agency to local and indigenous communities - both through Free, Prior and Informed Consent, and through financial equity and partnership. Here we spotlight the issue of indigenous and local community partnership in renewable energy in nine countries (Canada, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, US).

Climate ambitions

• Canada aims to reach net zero in its activities by 2050, and by 2035, it intends its electrical system to be entirely emission-free.

• The country also aims to reduce its emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

• At present, around 18.9% of Canada's electricity production comes from renewable sources.

Renewable energy sources

• The fastest-growing source of power in Canada, wind energy, generates 3.5% of the nation's electricity and is the second-most significant renewable energy source after hydroelectricity.

• Canada has some of the best wind energy potential in the world.

• According to the NEB, renewables like wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar are projected to reach 12% of total power generation by 2035.

Indigenous People & Culture

Around 4.3% of Canada’s overall population is Indigenous. Indians (First Nations), Métis, and Inuit are the three groups of Indigenous peoples acknowledged under the Canadian Constitution. The First Nations peoples inhabit areas south of the Arctic whilst the Inuit are mainly found far north in the Arctic. Métis people mainly inhabit Ontario and the Prairie provinces. There are around 617 First Nations or Indian bands representing more than 50 cultural groups across the country.

The impacts of colonisation on Indigenous peoples through forced assimilation, banning of Indigenous culture, the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from civic activities and the imposition of governance institutions were all done through the Indian Act. These historic actions have had a hugely detrimental impact on the socioeconomic status and health of Indigenous peoples, a situation exacerbated by racism, segregationist practices, land loss, and dwindling access to food supplies and public benefits. The legacy of the Indian Act continue to be felt in the relations between the Canadian state and Indigenous peoples. For example, despite Indigenous persons only representing 4% of the Canadian population, they account for 25% of the prison population in a justice system that disproportionately incarcerates Indigenous individuals.

Legal and institutional framework

At the domestic level, Canada recognises that Indigenous peoples have the implied right to self-government in the Constitution. This right to self-govern is with respect to matters that are integral to their cultures, identities and institutions as well as with respect to their unique relationship with land and resources.

There is also a large body of jurisprudence concerning aboriginal rights in Canada. Seminal cases such as Delgamuukw v British Columbia established Indigenous traditional title as a legal right to land under property law. The Haida Nation v British Columbia case of 2004 set out a formal duty on both federal and provincial governments to consult Indigenous peoples where their interests or treaty rights may be affected. Canada as a whole has numerous laws, policies and programmes addressing Indigenous rights and concerns. Compared to much of the rest of the world, Canada’s approach to negotiating treaties with Indigenous peoples and acknowledging traditional and historical claims can be considered good practice.

However, the Indian Act (despite many amendments) still does not permit Indigenous peoples to exercise effective self-government. While First Nations groups can opt out of the Indian Act, the alternatives are limited and require other types of self-government agreements. The former UN Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Rights James Anaya observed that federal funding for First Nations government in Canada has onerous reporting requirements and sometimes comes with non-Indigenous third-party management of the funding. With respect to Indigenous participation in decision-making, the Special Rapporteur noted the federal government amended a number of statutes in 2012 which affect Indigenous rights, including environmental and energy laws, without any specific consultation with indigenous peoples concerning them.

In 2019, the government of British Columbia passed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIP) into law, including practices such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). It now serves as their foundation for reconciliation. In 2021, the federal government sought to incorporate the UNDRIP into domestic law through the UNDRIP Act which required the government to prepare an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration. Until this plan is implemented and a law is passed cementing the requirements of the Declaration in Canadian statute, the requirements of UNDRIP will not have an immediate impact on Canada’s domestic laws. However, the UNDRIP Act requires that federal laws be consistent with UNDRIP, which is a very positive step conducive to Indigenous co-ownership of resource projects.

At the international level, Canada is a party to the ICCPR and the ICESCR. While it has promoted UNDRIP in its domestic laws, Canada has not ratified the ILO Convention No. 169.

Challenges and opportunities for Indigenous ownership of renewable energy

Canada is considered the leading country with regards to indigenous participation in renewable energy projects. There is a growing consensus that it is imperative to engage Indigenous People at all stages of energy projects that affect them in any way. The trend towards Indigenous co-ownership is part of the broader political and legal developments since 2004, including the two court decisions mentioned in the section above. In its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Canada explicitly makes reference to Indigenous climate leadership. The NDC discusses co-developing solutions with Indigenous Peoples and supporting self-determined climate action to advance the country’s reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous communities in Canada have access to various federal, provincial, and utility-based financing schemes to provide equity and capacity for renewable energy projects. There is a trend towards consortia of Indigenous groups combining their funds to acquire equity in high-value projects.  In the non-renewable resource extraction sector, First Nations groups have purchased up to $1 billion equity in certain projects (such as the controversial Keystone XL pipeline), suggesting that co-ownership arrangements are sophisticated and high-value.

After the Crown and private utilities, Indigenous communities control the greatest number of renewable energy assets and are participating in over 197 green energy initiatives. But not all forms of involvement meet the criteria for reconciliation and self-determination, whether they involve full ownership, co-ownership, financial benefits, royalty agreements, Indigenous funding, revenue-sharing agreements, leasing agreements, impact benefit agreements, or partnership schemes. It is only in 41 of these initiatives that Indigenous people have full or majority ownership (at least 51% or more of equity). Only six of the renewable energy projects are co-owned with Inuit communities, while the rest are with First Nations communities. The co-ownership structures have also come under criticism in some instances such as in the province of Saskatchewan where the provincial government is against direct revenue-sharing with First Nations on the basis that the resources are for all residents of Saskatchewan.

Projects are most successfully aligned with the principles of UNDRIP when planned using approaches that allow for full Indigenous consultation and equal decision-making authority. More specifically, there are five general classifications of ownership arrangements that can contribute to reconciliation:

1. Indigenous Ownership: Fully Indigenous-owned projects are enabled through access to developers and favourable financing arrangements. This model offers Indigenous communities full decision-making power and control over a project's planning, management, jobs, profits and revenues and can strengthen the goals of reconciliation and self-determination.
2. General Partnership: Indigenous Coalition. In this model, ownership is equally split between or among partners. For example, Three Nations Energy Inc. is a partnership between two local First Nations and a Metis association in Alberta for solar energy. These types of partnerships can be beneficial to pool funds for larger investments.
3. General Partnership: Indigenous-Developer. Ownership is shared equally between an Indigenous community and a renewable energy developer with shared decision-making and equally distributed earnings. The division of responsibility regarding construction, operations, and maintenance are addressed depending on the individual circumstances., The generated energy is sold to a utility through a power purchase agreement. With this model, Indigenous peoples can exercise some autonomy while utilising the energy companies' resources, technical expertise and financing.
4. Limited Partnership: Formed between utility partners and indigenous communities or as coalitions of Indigenous and First Nations communities. The terms of such co-ownership are usually agreed upon prior to the project and are highly flexible models that can distribute liability and risks.
5. Equity Ownership: This is the simplest model where Indigenous communities purchase equity in a project and act as shareholders. The Indigenous communities may not actively participate in the project's planning or administration. It is similar to limited partnerships, but the Indigenous partner often controls 25% or less of the project.

Examples of Funding Programs & Initiatives

BC First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund (FNCEBF)

Created by the Clean Energy Act. Designed to promote increased Indigenous participation in the clean energy sector through (1) revenue-sharing directly with First Nations impacted by a clean energy project, and (2) grants available to British Columbia First Nations to support capacity and equity investment in clean energy projects.

British Columbia Indigenous Clean Energy Initiative (BCICEI)

Administered by The New Relationship Trust, funded by the Federal Government’s Strategic Partnerships Initiative (SPI) and the Province of BC’s CleanBC plan. It aims to provide support and capacity-building funds to Indigenous communities working on the development of clean energy projects, creating benefits including ownership, revenue sharing, business development, and local employment.

Northern Responsible Energy Approach for Community Heat & Electricity program (REACHE)

Administered by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. Funds renewable energy projects, and related capacity building and planning. Supporting northern and Indigenous communities in their transition to sustainable energy sources to support energy security, reconciliation and self-determination for Indigenous peoples.

The Indigenous Clean Energy Social Enterprise

Administered by Indigenous Clean Energy and involves multiple initiatives:

1. Catalysts Program: Indigenous clean energy capacity-building program. Provides learning about renewable energy projects, energy planning, energy efficiency, conservation, and business management. In addition, participants are supported to move clean energy projects forward on the ground.
2. The ICE Network: An opportunity for people working on Indigenous clean energy projects to collaborate to maximise the impact of their initiatives.
3. Global Hub: The Global Hub focuses on building international relationships and fostering knowledge sharing around Indigenous clean energy efforts.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

1. Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities Program (CERRC). A $220-million program to deploy renewable energy technologies, encourage energy efficiency and build local capacity in Indigenous communities. Provides funding for renewable energy and capacity-building projects. Helps build energy security, reconciliation, self-determination, and economic development for Indigenous People.
2. The Indigenous Off-Diesel Initiative. The initiative is delivered in collaboration with the Indigenous Clean Energy Social Enterprise and the Pembina Institute. Impact Canada Initiative involves $75M over 4 years.

Profile cases

Sukunka Wind Energy Project

• Region: BC
• Model: Indigenous ownership

Partnership between Saulteau First Nation (majority ownership) and the renewable energy company Natural Forces. Natural Forces is a private renewable energy company that works with local communities in Canada and Ireland to ensure economic growth in vulnerable communities. The project represents the largest majority-owned Indigenous green energy project in B.C. and generates energy that is sold to BC Hydro and Power Authority under separate 40-year energy-purchase agreements.

Zonnebeke Wind Project

• Region: BC
• Model: Limited partnership

Partnership between West Moberly First Nation (minority ownership) and Natural Forces. Generates energy that is sold to BC Hydro and Power Authority under separate 40-year energy-purchase agreements.

Cowessess Wind Development

• Region: BC
• Model: Limited partnership

Partnership between Cowessess First Nation (CFN) and the Saskatchewan Research Council. The project secured a 20-year SaskPower Power Purchase Agreement and project funding. Through the Treaty Land Entitlement process, CFN purchased land holdings in Southern Saskatchewan with the objective of future development and economic return. Funding partners include CFN capital investment, Saskatchewan Research Council, CERRC, AANDC and Saskatchewan’s Go Green Program.

Burchill Wind Energy Project & Wocawson Wind Project

• Region: Nova Scotia
• Model: Indigenous ownership

Partnership between the First Nation in Neqotkuk (majority ownership) and Natural Forces for investment in two wind energy projects. The main motivation is to make Neqotkuk self-sufficient. No government funding was used, but the partnership came out of the government's Locally-Owned Renewable Energy Small Scale (LORESS) program.

Truro-Millbrook Wind Project

• Region: Nova Scotia
• Model: Indigenous ownership

Partnership between the Millbrook First Nation and Juwi Wind Canada Ltd. to build Truro-Millbrook Wind Limited, utilising Community Wind Farms Inc. for local development services. The Project is co-located with another wind project, Truro Heights Community Wind, which will be majority-owned by Eskasoni First Nation. The wind projects are developed under Nova Scotia's Community Feed-In-Tariff Program (COMFIT). The wind farm shares economic opportunities with the local community and the Millbrook First Nation, providing them with a revenue stream enabling economic development.

Glooscap Energy Projects

• Region: Nova Scotia
• Model: Indigenous ownership

100% owned entity of Glooscap First Nation to implement renewable energy projects on behalf of the community. Glooscap First Nation is a net exporter of renewable energy. They own Amherst Wind Farm together with the other 12 Mi'kmaq communities (majority ownership) in partnership with Natural Forces. Moreover, they own Whynotts Wind Farm Glooscap together with the other 12 Mi'kmaq communities (majority ownership) in partnership with Potentia Renewables.

Mesgi’g Ugju’s’n Wind Farm

• Region: Quebec
• Model: General Partnership: Indigenous Coalition

50-50 partnership between the Mi’gmawei Mawiomi Business Corporation (collaboration between three Mi’kmaq communities) and Innergex Renewable Energy. About 110 workers from the Mi’kmaq communities were employed in the wind farm construction, and the estimated profits from the project are $200 mn for the Mi’kmaq over 20 years.

Apuiat Wind Farm

• Region: Quebec
• Model: General Partnership: Indigenous Developer

50-50 partnership between Innu Nation and Boralex. Profits are divided evenly, and all decisions are made collectively. The access road was built with significant involvement from the Innu to minimise disruptions to the local ecology. The project location was chosen for its ideal producing capacity.

Rivière-du-Moulin wind farm

• Region: Quebec
• Model: Equity Ownership

Majority-owned by EDF Renewables. Local municipalities, Huron Wendat Nation, the Innu of Mashteuiatsh and Essipit First Nations all have an equity ownership stake in the project, totalling 15%.

Climate ambition

• In accordance with the Paris Agreement, Chile has made ambitious pledges such as generating 70% of its energy mix from renewable energy.

• The Chilean Climate Change Framework law of 2022 sets a binding goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

• The law also introduces the maximum amount of GHG emissions which can be emitted in each sector in a given period as well as mitigation plans. 

Renewable energy sources

• Chile is also a strategic actor on the global stage due to the wealth of minerals  in the Atacama Desert.

• Chile’s environment presents several opportunities for solar, hydrogen, and wind power projects such as in the Atacama Desert (solar) and Patagonia Mountains (wind). The solar potential in Chile is particularly remarkable and the best in the world.

• To realise its targets, Chile's government is heavily investing in renewable energy, with equity from foreign investors and one-third of Chile's energy mix is already made up of hydrogen.

Indigenous People & Culture

In 2021, approximately 2.2 million Chileans identified as belonging to one of the ten recognised indigenous groups under state law: Mapuche, Aymara, Rapanui, Atacameño or Likan Antai, Quechua, Colla, Chango, Diaguita, Kawésqar, and Yagán. The indigenous population constitutes approximately 10% of Chile's total population. The indigenous groups are spread across the country, however, urbanisation has led to approximately 80% indigenous Chileans living in cities. Of the total population, the indigenous population remains the most vulnerable and poorest groups. While the Mapuche possessed their own territory under the Spanish rule, after independence in 1818, the Chilean state colonized c. 23 million acres of Mapuche land. Systemic discrimination and historical dispossession in legal and political institutions have led to minimal land rights, poverty, limited access to social services, and limited means to reproduce indigenous culture. 

Legal and institutional frameworks

At the domestic level, Chile is yet to constitutionally recognise its indigenous peoples. The domestic legal system describes the indigenous groups as “ethnicities” rather than sovereign indigenous groups with different identities and cultures. However, the law acknowledges and protects the different groups cultures and languages, while also having a mechanism for the acquisition or transfer of land and water rights to native communities. The law officially recognises eight indigenous groups. Additionally, to allow indigenous people a voice, the Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena (CONADI) was erected which consists of government officials and indigenous representatives, and enables indigenous people to implement programs with the purpose to, for instance, reacquire land and water rights.

With respect to land rights, the legal framework has granted title to a very limited portion of ancestral territory to Indigenous peoples. For example, while the Colla are a legally recognised group with ancestral territory stretching across more than 800,000 hectares of the Atacama Region, the government has only granted the Colla title to around 9,000 hectares of land. Similarly, there is still around 150,000 hectares of Mapuche lands that have not been recognised under Chilean law.

The legacy of Pinochet’s regime in Chile during the 1970s and 1980s has also impacted land rights for indigenous groups. Pinochet’s emphasis on privatisation and neoliberal policies led to the transfer of all Mapuche land to forestry companies, and although some of the land was returned, private forestry companies today possess three times as much ancestral land than the Mapuche people.

The criminal law system in Chile has also been criticised for targeting indigenous activists. Chile’s counterterrorism laws have enabled the state to incarcerate and intimidate indigenous activists and ancestral authorities. With a broad definition of terrorism, this law has allowed Mapuche land rights activists to be harshly prosecuted since the late 1990s.

In October 2019, a wave of protests erupted across Chile against inequality and poor public services. Part of the public demand was for a new Chilean constitution and a critical part of the new constitution is the opportunity for the involvement of indigenous communities and to “establish a new social contract based on the respectful coexistence of the country’s different national and cultural groups.” However, the progressive constitution, which guaranteed a range of social rights and indigenous sovereignty, was rejected by voters in September 2022. As a second iteration of the constitution is being drafted, it remains to be seen whether the recognition and protection of indigenous rights will be diluted.

At the international level, Chile adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in 2007 and subsequently ratified the ILO Convention 169 in 2008. With regards to decision-making concerning the occupation of land, SEA (Sistema Nacional de Evaluación Ambiental) and ILO 169 are relevant to the cases below. Due to their non-binding nature, the effectiveness of such international instruments remains ambiguous.

Challenges for indigenous ownership of renewable energy

Perhaps the greatest challenge to indigenous ownership of renewable projects in Chile is the absence of a robust legal framework that recognises indigenous ancestral lands and sovereignty. Due to the limited grant of title to Indigenous groups over their ancestral lands, the territorial sovereignty of such groups are not being respected. For example, there are six mining companies currently prospecting within the Colla’s ancestral territory in the Atacama region. In their environmental impact reports, these companies only assess the territories that have been recognised by the government under land law which only constitutes a tenth of Colla territory.

The lack of consultation with indigenous communities whose lands, environment and rights are affected by mining projects is another huge challenge. Furthermore, the profits have not benefitted the communities who bear the costs of environmental destruction. In the lithium mining sector, companies have not only extracted large profits through mining in the Atacama region, they have failed to consult indigenous communities and have worked with local authorities to silence or intimidate any indigenous people who speak out about the environmental harms.

Profile cases

Chiloé wind power project (2011-2015)

The Chiloé wind power project is owned by Ecopower since 2010 and originally approved in 2011 by SEIA. The onshore wind farm gained international attention due to it endangering the great blue whale habitat. Surrounding communities also claimed that Ecopower's large wind farm disrupted the local economy and would displace the people living there without creating new economic opportunities or providing compensation. A year later, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the approval was illegal as Ecopower failed to properly consult neighboring Indigenous communities as required under ILO 169.

After changing its environmental declaration twice, in 2015, Ecopower received approval for its plans which were created after consulting with four nearby indigenous communities. Regardless, opposition persisted as critics argued that community participation in the planning and implementation of the plan was poor and informed consent amongst communities was low. Furthermore, there were several communities who were not consulted as they were considered to be too geographically distant from the project. Again, Chile’s limited legal recognition of Indigenous territory combined with a lack of respect for free, prior and informed consent by both local authorities and the company were the cause of conflict.

Pililín wind project (2015-Present)

Original plans for the Pililín wind farm were drafted by Acconia Energy in 2015. According to local Mapuche communities, the onshore wind farm negatively impacts the nearby Valdivian rainforest, encroaches on sacred grounds, and disrupts local tourism. Consequently, Acconia revised its Environmental Impact Assessment several times and, in its third revision, it acknowledged five areas which the wind farm negatively impacts, namely the Carlos Andwandter Nature Sanctuary, Llancahue, the Curiñanco Biodiversity Conservation Priority Site, the Oncol Park, and the Pilunkura Nature Reserve. The company acknowledged that the wind farm encroaches on Indigenous protected land, affects water and land reserves, and reduces biodiversity.

In revising its assessment, Acconia did engage local communities to create awareness and adjust its plans, proposing, for instance, to replant the affected native forest. However, these proposals of “offsetting” the impacts did not meaningfully account for what indigenous groups were seeking. A local associated with the Curiñanco Biodiversity Conservation Priority Site observed that "rebuilding it [protected forests] in 2 years" is "ridiculous", "since we are talking about forests of more than thousand and two thousand years old”. As of today, the project is suspended pending relocation and the company seems to have lost their social license to operate in this region.

Mainstream Renewable Power (2014-Present)

As an example of good practice, Mainstream Renewable Power (MRP), an Irish owned renewable energies company and one of Chile's largest investors, has sought to promote just transition in Chile in partnership with affected communities. They have successfully set up 14 projects between 2014 and 2020.

For example, in 2014, for its on-shore Negrete Cruel wind farm, MRP agreed with neighbouring communities to set up an investment fund to stimulate the development of the area.  In 2015, for its on-shore Puelche Sur wind farm, MRP engaged neighboring communities in the early stages of setting up another wind farm. The company claims that it obtained informed consent from the Indigenous communities, listened to their concerns and adapted its plans accordingly to attain approval for its environmental assessment. Both wind farms are currently active.

Climate ambition

• Colombia has made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 51% and black carbon emissions by 40% in 2030 compared to 2014 levels.

• It aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

• In 2021, the country's energy mix was dominated by hydropower (c. 70%), followed by fossil fuels (c. 29%), and alternative renewable energy sources (c. 1%). It is a country well on its way to a green transition.

Renewable energy sources

• Colombia is a source of renewable minerals such as copper, nickel, lithium, lead, iron, and zinc.

• There is significant wind power in the La Guajira region. The government has recently released a roadmap for offshore wind farms near the cost of Barranquilla.

• Parts of Colombia along the Caribbean have higher solar radiation speeds than global averages.

• Colombia’s installed variable renewable energy is projected to increase by 12% by the end of 2022, and well over 17% by 2030. 

Indigenous People & Culture

In 2018, 3.4% of Colombia's population identified as indigenous. While the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE) recognises 87 indigenous groups, other estimates are significantly greater: the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) recognizes 102 indigenous peoples. The indigenous population has a claim to a third of Colombia's territory but due to armed conflicts since 1964, they have experienced forced displacement and loss of lands. Following the 2018 election of President Duque and the subsequent armed unrest, violence towards indigenous communities and land grabs have increased.

Legal and institutional frameworks

At the domestic level, Colombia's constitution of 1991 recognised the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination. Indigenous communities have some autonomy over the administration of their own resources, levying taxes and also have a share of the national revenue. The main representative bodies are the "Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia" or “National Indigenous Organization of Colombia” (ONIC) and "Autoridades Indígenas de Colombia" (AICO) who represent the indigenous population to the state.

Since the mid 1980s, the government has recognised the rights of indigenous peoples to own 15 million hectares of land known as “resguardos” or “reservas”. There are four major groups subject to special protection regarding mining projects on their territories which are indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombian communities, Raizal communities and Romani people. However, the regulatory framework states that Indigenous communities cannot prevent external applications for the exploitation of resources on their territories unless that community is already engaging in such activities on the land. Furthermore, the Colombian system preferences granting mining concessions to large-scale mining corporations over the small-scale artisanal mining which Indigenous communities engage in.

The law does require that projects on Indigenous lands need the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of affected communities (although, as a rule, communities do not have any veto rights). FPIC processes are often rushed, provide limited information to communities and in some cases, companies offer food and school supplies in exchange for written consent. Therefore, there is a gap between the rights to self-determination outlined in the Colombian constitution and what happens in practice.

At the international level, Colombia has ratified the International Labour Organization’s Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Convention (no. 169). In 2007, the country also adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

Challenges and opportunities for indigenous ownership of renewable energy

In addition to the challenges outlined above regarding the lack of meaningful consent being obtained prior to exploitative activities and the prioritisation of large-scale activities over artisanal, Indigenous-owned mining, Indigenous partnership in the development of renewable energy is also limited by the challenges of obtaining royalties. Although the Colombian constitution requires that royalties be paid to both indigenous and broader communities which extractive operations impact, only a fraction of the royalties are actually paid.

The green transition and developments towards a more sustainable energy mix through building wind farms have led to the rights of indigenous communities being violated, including the absence of consultation or consent, displacement, violence, threats, the loss of livelihood and access to a healthy environment. The case below illustrates how the human rights and the right to self-determination of the Wayúu continue to be threatened by the construction of wind farms.

Profile Case: La Guajiara - Wind Farm

The Wayúu

One of the 102 indigenous groups in Colombia are the semi-nomadic Wayúu. They inhabit La Guajiara peninsula on the Northern coast and are organized in 30 familial clans which are led by matriarchs. Only the younger clan members speak Spanish, which is the official language of Colombia. The Wayúu clans are decentralized and struggle with old intra-clan conflicts. Traditionally, most of the Wayúu are goat and sheep herders, fishers, merchants, and, contingent on the amount of rain, farmers. Due to the scarcity of rain and vegetation, clans that herd move around in search of water or plants. With poverty rates up to 94% on the peninsula, the Wayúu have benefitted little from economic booms that resulted from resources found on the island such as pearls during the Spanish colonization, and gas, coal, and oil mining during the last century.

The wind farm

In 2022, the government inaugurated the onshore La Guajiara I wind farm, owned by Elecnor and Isagen, to be in operation for 17 years. The farm is one of several to be built in the coming three years. The La Guajiara region is uniquely suited to generate wind energy as it has wind speeds higher than the global average. The La Guajiara I project alone will allow Colombia to increase its wind energy generation from 0.5% to 12%. The Ministry of Mines and Energy plans to generate 17% of Colombia's energy needs from wind energy by 2031 produced on the La Guajiara peninsula.

The absence of consultation

In 2017, researchers scouted the wind potential of the island, compensating those indigenous communities who allowed them to set up their equipment. Yet, the researchers did not inform the clans on what they would do next. Over the years, the state has continued to fail to inform Wayúu clans about the scope of the intended projects to be built. Different media outlets report numbers from a minimum of 14 accepted projects to a maximum of 57 proposed projects. To draw a picture, the Institute for Development and Peace Studies estimates that up to 40% of Wayúu lands will be affected by the infrastructure needed to support the proposed wind farms.

While the Wayúu recognize the potential of wind energy to contribute to the development of Colombia, the director of Nación Wayúu, a human rights advocacy group, states that the Wayúu want to ensure that the indigenous communities on the La Guajiara peninsula benefit as well. A local community leader furthermore stated that the company did not properly consult the Wayúu prior to construction of the La Guajiara I wind farm. Companies failed to consult clan leaders and typically talked to younger members who speak Spanish or to members who do not represent the entire clan. Consultations for projects have often been rushed and the compensation processes have led to conflicts amongst clans.

The resistance of a community

Consultation meetings have been taking place since 2020 and approximately 8 wind farms have reached agreements with neighbouring clans for compensation mechanisms that would benefit the development of the community. In 2020, during COVID, President Duque signed an executive order which expedites the consultation process and leaves the decision to the government contingent on an approved environmental assessment. The rushed consultation process could further worsen (old) conflicts between clans that have a different understanding of wind and land rights than the Western companies.

Weidler Guerra Curvelo, an anthropologist at Los Andes University and a member of the Wayúu:

In a nutshell, wind energy projects on La Guajiara are currently planned without proper consultation of the Wayúu and are in danger of fracturing the clans that are already in a vulnerable position. Agreements that have been reached have mostly been negotiated with Spanish-speak younger members of the clans. Consequently, there is a high probability that the constitutional court will reject the consultation proceedings in the coming years as community members continue to voice their opposition.

Climate ambition

• In the past two decades, Honduras improved its citizens' access to electricity. Yet, in 2022, 7.2% of the country's population remains without access to the energy grid.

• In addition to its increased industrial activity, this has led to a higher demand for energy. 51% of this demand is currently fulfilled by imported oil which the country imports.

• In 2021, President Castro made an ambitious promise that 70% of Honduras' energy demand would be met by the country's own renewable energy production.

Renewable energy resources

• Honduras' environment provides ample opportunity for setting up projects that would lend to its ambitions.
• In 2010, 40 contracts were approved for hydroelectric projects of which over half would affect indigenous communities (who had not been consulted).

• The financial feasibility of the country’s renewable energy goals has been questioned particularly since the bankruptcy of the National Electricity Company (Honduras' key energy provider) in 2021 as a key example of this.

• Most funding for renewable energy projects has therefore come from foreign investors and this trend is expected to continue.

Indigenous People in Honduras

In 2013, approximately 9% of Honduras' population self-identified as indigenous. Aside from Afro-descendant indigenous peoples, the Lenca, Pech, Tawahka, Xicaque, Maya Ch’ortí, Misquito, and Garífuna are seven culturally distinct indigenous groups. Of these groups, the Lenca and Garífuna are the most numerous. Honduran indigenous people are spread across the country and claim the right to 17.8% of the country's territory. While some indigenous peoples had communal property rights during the colonial era, it was not until the 1990s, that indigenous movements began around the country to reclaim traditional lands. Around 505 titles were issued to indigenous communities between 1993 and 2015, covering over 1 million hectares. This led to indigenous municipalities being created in San Marcos de Caiquin (Lenca), San Francisco de Opalaca (Lenca), Juan Francisco Bulnes (Garifuna), and in the Misquita, Villeda Morales, Ahuas and Wampusirpi area.

Indigenous communities face systemic problems such as multidimensional poverty, violence, insecurity of land rights, lack of access to basic social services and very little access to justice. 

Legal and institutional framework

At the domestic level: Since 1982, the Honduran Constitution has recognised the cultural and historical heritage of indigenous peoples and declares the state will protect their rights. There are some institutions such as the Office of the Special prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage (which handles complaints of violations of indigenous peoples’ rights) and the Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (which implements policies regarding social and economic development in indigenous communities). However, these institutions are under-resourced and need to be strengthened. While there are legal instruments for the protection of Indigenous lands such as the Property Act (2004) which provides for the registration of indigenous lands, the Act contains several loopholes which permit third parties to take legal possession of such lands without Indigenous consent.

At the international level: The Honduran Constitution provides that international treaties automatically form part of domestic law (article 15). Honduras ratified ILO 169 in 1995 and, adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. In 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared that Honduras was violating collective ownership rights and failed to provide judicial protection to indigenous communities. The Court ordered that consultation and consent must be obtained prior to any exploration project which affects the traditional lands of the indigenous and tribal communities across the country. The UN, Amnesty International, and other international bodies have criticised Honduras' treatment of human right defenders in the Garifuna indigenous communities, such as the use of unlawful incarceration and bringing harm to activists. 

Challenges and opportunities for indigenous ownership of renewable energy

The situation for indigenous peoples in Honduras with respect to their land rights and rights over natural resources is increasingly critical. The Special Rapporteur for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples observed that for all the wind and hydroelectric contracts approved in 2010 which affected indigenous communities, none of the communities were consulted. In some instances, development companies persuaded indigenous individuals to sign leasing documents under duress by claiming that if their signature was not provided, the land would be expropriated.

Another key challenge is that human rights defenders from indigenous communities affected by renewable energy projects have been characterised as violent agitators and opposition has been met with unlawful arrests, deaths and criminalisation. There are very few avenues for indigenous peoples to enforce their rights, particularly due to the politicisation of the legal system and judiciaries as well as the lack of institutional capacity to investigate cases. In 2021, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights denounced the impunity for crimes against human rights defenders in the country, noting that perpetrators are not held accountable in almost 90% of cases.

The case below illustrates how the rights of the Lenca are currently being violated.

Profile case: Cerro de Hula wind farm

Cerro de Hula is the first grid-connecting, on-shore wind farm in Honduras that electrifies neighbouring (indigenous) communities. In partnership with several other private entities, Energía Eólica de Honduras has operated the project in the Santa Anna municipality since 2011 and has gained a 50-year concession. It is marketed as a sustainable venture that benefits the region. To that end, the UNFCCC accepted the projects as part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and approved it in 2020. Another international institute involved is the World Bank which provided a “multilateral investment guarantee” (a risk insurance tool for foreign investors) to those involved in this project and insures the project against risks such as civil disturbances.

The Lenca community, however, voiced its opposition in the early stages of the project citing a number of human rights violations related to the nature of the project and its location:

• First, the neighboring community was not properly consulted, and no environmental assessments were made public as required under ILO 169. The company sought signatures from indigenous individuals for lease agreements with a warning that if they did not provide their agreement, the land would be expropriated.

• Second, communities were forcibly expropriated by the government who cited the areas’ new “public” purpose and social benefits. However, the project is privately owned, and profits go to private entities.

• Third, the project encroaches on key historical Mesoamerica agricultural terraces which are of cultural and historical importance to Central America. The Hula hill itself is furthermore located in between the Hierba Buena Biosphere Reserve and the Uyuca Biological Reserve. The project consequently disturbs water and land reserves and leads to biodiversity loss. In short, the Lenca claim that the Cerro de Hula wind farm violates ancestral, land, and water rights.

Despite indigenous organisations and other civil society groups pushing for the project to cease due to its social and environmental impacts, the project is still ongoing. Additionally, the historical treatment of Lenca Indigenous activists, such as the 2016 killing of Caceres, a Lenca indigenous leader, highlights the dangers faced by those who seek to defend their lands and the environment.

Climate ambition

• Mexico aims to have 35% renewable energy by 2025 and 50% by 2050, with a carbon neutrality pledge by 2050.

• Mexico’s energy mix is heavily dominated by gas and oil, however, renewable sources are increasing significantly as the country is working to live up to their Paris climate commitments and support the green transition.

• In 2019, around 24% of energy was generated by renewable sources. The renewable energy capacity has grown since the mid-1990s and expanded significantly in the latter half of the 2010s due to a national energy reform aimed at stimulating investment in the sector.

• Mexico’s ambitious reform in the electricity sector includes a quota system for clean energy certificates, the introduction of auctions for long-term energy contracts and subsidies for household electricity consumption.

Renewable energy sources

• Mexico has large untapped wind and solar resources, and the electricity generated by wind and solar power combined almost tripled between 2015 and 2019.

• Mexico has good conditions for renewable energy production and the number and scale of renewable energy projects have risen significantly during the last decades.  

Indigenous Peoples of Mexico

Mexico has a large indigenous population, estimated to be between 8% and 11% of the national population. Over half of the indigenous populace live in four of Mexico’s 32 states in the south and south-central regions. The different indigenous peoples living in Mexico have developed and maintained different cultures, customs and languages but all the groups share a cultural and historic connection to their land. Activities such as fishing, farming and livestock breeding are both vital economic activities and also central to the way of life and the culture of indigenous peoples.

Much like other indigenous populations across the Americas, colonisation has left a legacy of discrimination, inequality and exploitation in Mexico for indigenous communities. Despite legal developments to formally recognise indigenous rights, indigenous resistance to land exploitation has been met with gross human rights violations such as “disappearances” at the hands of government forces that often collude with private interests. In recent years, a large proportion of Indigenous people have in recent years been subject to forced internal displacement due to land conflicts. Over the past decade, around 60% of the indigenous population have been internally displaced as a result of land disputes with extractives companies who often work with organised crime groups in the country.

Legal framework for Indigenous rights and sovereignty 

At the domestic level, the Constitution of Mexico, amended in 1992, recognises the rights of Indigenous people to self-determination and to have preferential access to natural resources in the areas they inhabit. Since 1917 when the Constitution was written, the integrity of lands belonging to indigenous groups has been protected by the law as “social property” or “ejidos” under Article 27, which is the foundation of the land tenure system in Mexico. Ejidos can only be used for residential and cultivation purposes while the “direct ownership of all natural resources” below ejido topsoil is reserved for the Mexican government. However, Article 27 was reformed in 1992 to legalise the privatisation of the ejidos and other social property and effectively allow the transfer of communal lands to multinational corporations.

Despite improvements in the legal protection of indigenous peoples in Mexico, and a legal framework that appears powerful, scholars have criticized how these laws are implemented and followed, arguing that it does not provide sufficient protection in practice for indigenous peoples. The Constitutional protections for certain types of Indigenous land rights and cultures are considered to be paternalistic as they ultimately subordinate Indigenous sovereignty to the “provincial and federal authorities” of the settler-colonial state.

At the international level, Mexico ratified the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989, also referred to as the ILO 169 (“Convention”) in 1990.  Mexico further ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, a framework elaborating on existing human rights for the survival, well-being and dignity of indigenous peoples.

Challenges and opportunities for indigenous ownership of renewable energy

One major challenge for Indigenous communities in Mexico has been conflict with developers of renewable energy projects who often use repressive techniques against opposition to construction.

Mexico’s ambitious energy sector reforms since 2013 have led to growth in wind energy developments. This has led to rapid constructions of wind parks in places like Oaxaca with very little consultation with or concern for the human rights of indigenous communities. Due to extremely favourable wind conditions, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca has been increasingly targeted by international companies seeking to build large wind farm projects over the past 25 years. Much of the land where companies are looking to construct their wind project is ancestral land communally owned by indigenous peoples and the construction would impact the livelihoods, resources, health and cultures of the indigenous communities. Wind developers have been accused of using unethical or illegal methods for obtaining the land for their projects. There have been reports of bribery, manipulation, violence and intimidation toward the local indigenous communities.  The use of military and paramilitary actors in the pursuit of the construction of wind parks has been widely recorded as a frequent tool used against indigenous resistance.

The construction and operation of wind farms have also harmed indigenous peoples in the area. For example, there have been reports from local fishermen of the mass-killing of fish resulting from the construction of wind farms. Further, as land rented by companies is forbidden for framers and fishermen to access without permission, some fishermen can no longer access the coast. This not only limits their economic opportunities but also restricts how they can enjoy their ancestral culture. 

Profile Case: Gunna Sicarú

The case of Guuna Sicarú, a wind farm comprising 115 wind turbines, making it one of Latin American largest, is interesting from an indigenous rights perspective. The project was planned on land belonging to the indigenous Unión Hidalgo community who argued that free prior and informed consent had not been properly provided in the consultation process. These claims ultimately led to the cancellation of the electricity supply contracts effectively cancelling the project as a whole.

The French energy company EDF started work on the project in 2015 and was granted a permit by the Mexican government in 2017 for the construction of the Guuna Sicarú. However, the permit was granted without consultation that would have ensured free, prior and informed consent from the affected indigenous Zapotec community of Unión Hidalgo on whose land the project was to be built.

According to a report by European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, EDF’s Mexican subsidiary held negotiations with “landholder committees” and signed contracts with individuals of the community who declared themselves as “landowners”. Negotiations with selected individuals, who did not represent the entire community, did not fulfil the FPIC obligation toward the Unión Hidalgo community. Further, as the land is communal, contracts with selected individuals are a violation of the right to collective property.

Due to considerable pushback and criticism, the Mexican authorities were ordered by a Mexican Federal Court to conduct a consultation process following the International Labour Organization standards in 2018. However the consultation process did not seem to live up to the international standards and instead the conflict, and violence in the community escalated, with threats and attacks against human rights and land rights defenders.

After ineffective attempts to achieve proper consultation, by filing a complaint over EDF to the OECD French National Contact Point, the local representatives of Unión Hidalgo, supported by ProDESC and ECCHR, approached EDF arguing that the company did not fulfil the French mandatory due diligence law. EDF responded that its vigilance plan was sufficient, leading the complainants to file a civil lawsuit against the company in France in 2020. The indigenous community of Unión Hidalgo and ProDESC also carried out litigation in local district courts.

After five years of legal struggle, the Mexican government, through the Federal Electricity Commission, decided to cancel the supply contracts with EDF. As private and foreign companies require a partnership with CFE to connect to the national grid this decision made the project unviable. The cancellation of the contracts was especially significant as it was the first time in 15 years that a wind farm project was cancelled by the federal government in the region due to a legal challenge by an indigenous community.

Climate ambition

• Norway aims to reduce GHG emissions by 40% by 2030 and to become a low-emission society by 2050, meaning levels about 90% lower than in 1990.

• Norway has a power sector that is almost entirely renewables-based. Due to the extensive use of hydropower, renewable energy sources currently account for 98% of electricity production.

• Nevertheless, Norway has a lot of work ahead to meet its low-emissions target of 2050. Norway’s emission reductions are primarily concerned with sectors such as gas and oil production, industry and transport.

Renewable energy sources

• Although wind power currently accounts for only a small part of the total power production in Norway it has become an increasingly important source of renewable energy and the number of turbines has risen tenfold during the last decade.

• Between 2019 and April 2022, the government ceased providing new licenses for wind projects but it has now resumed.

• Norway also has one of the largest offshore wind potential in the world and has aims to majorly expand its offshore wind by 2040. The zones that are planned for offshore wind are all along the coast of the entire country.

Indigenous Sami and Reindeer Husbandry

The northern part of Norway is a part of the Sápmi area, which spans Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Russian Kola Peninsula. The Sápmi area is the traditional land of the Sami people, an indigenous people that have inhabited the area since time immemorial. It is estimated that the Sami population is approximately 70 000 – 100,000 people, with a majority, around 50 000, living in the northern parts of Norway.

The Sami have maintained their culture and traditional livelihood, including reindeer husbandry, which has been a crucial part of the Sami culture for thousands of years. Today, there are around 200 000 reindeer in Norway and the average number of reindeer per owner is 70. The reindeer herding area comprises approximately 40% of Norway’s surface area.

Legal and institutional framework

At the domestic level, the recognition and protection of Sami culture, livelihood and language is found in the Norwegian Constitution at article 110a and a statute concerning the Sami Parliament and other matters pertaining to the Sami (Sami Act). The Constitution states that it is the responsibility of the state to create conditions enabling the Sami people to preserve and develop their language, culture and way of life.

The Sami Act established the Sami Parliament, which consists of 39 elected representatives from seven Sami constituencies. The Sami Parliament is both an elected body representing the Sami as well as an administrative agency of the state. In 2005, the Norwegian government and the Sami Parliament entered into an agreement which outlines consultation requirements that must be complied with concerning matters that may directly affect the Sami. These consultation provisions are in line with those set out in the ILO Convention 169.

Notably, the former UN Special Rapporteur on indigenous rights considered this agreement to represent good practice for indigenous consultation.

Norway’s “Finnmark Act” is another piece of law passed in 2005 which was developed with the Sami Parliament to provide self-determination rights and control over natural resources to the Sami people. However, there are concerns that this Act does not adequately protect the East Sami group. The Reindeer Husbandry Act is a law which provides the Sami with exclusive rights over certain reindeer grazing areas. The reindeer grazing area covers approximately 40% of Norway.

Norway has incorporated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into its domestic law. The domestic law provides legal protection for Sami people mainly through article 1, stating the right to self-determination, and article 27, stating the right of minorities to use their language and enjoy their culture.

At the international level, Norway has ratified the ILO 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Other than incorporating the ICCPR and ICESCR into its domestic law, Norway is also party to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) and its Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (1992). 

Challenges for Indigenous rights and renewables

Reindeer herding requires vast areas of land for grazing purposes and the Sami have used the Sápmi area for reindeer husbandry since time immemorial. With the number and scale of wind power projects increasing in the Sápmi area in the last decade, the rights of the Sami to their culture, identity, lands, resources and livelihoods are threatened. Some proponents of wind energy have argued that there is a possible co-existence between wind farms and reindeer herding. However, several recent studies have found that reindeer herding is adversely affected by the construction and operation of wind farms. Migration, grazing and calving can be disturbed, and reindeer herders can face increased costs and workload. Consequently, wind power expansion has intensified the conflict over the exploitation of natural resources in Norway. Wind power companies argue that the expansion is crucial for the green transition required to save the environment whereas the Sami argue that this is nothing but green colonialism—a form of exploitation and threats to indigenous ways of life under the banner of a green transition.

Profile Case: Fosen Vind 

The most significant case concerning the impacts of renewable energy on the Sami people is that of the Fosen Vind project. In a historic ruling by the Norwegian Supreme Court in October 2021, the licenses granted to two wind farm projects were deemed invalid as the constructions were found to violate the rights of the Sami to enjoy their culture.

Early Pushback

The construction of the Fosen Vind project, one of the largest onshore wind power projects in Europe, began in 2018. The wind farm project, comprising of six wind farms in the north and central part of Norway, was developed by Fosen Vind, a subsidiary of the state-owned entity Statkraft AS.

Demonstrations were held and complaints were made by the Sami prior to the commencement of the project on the basis that the land for two of the planned wind farms, in the Storheia and Roan areas, were areas designated for reindeer grazing. The Sami argued that the turbines adversely affect reindeer husbandry in those areas and infringe on their indigenous rights and the enjoyment of their culture.

After unsuccessful attempts to stop the construction through legal action and demonstrations, the Sami council filed a complaint about the Storheia project to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In response, the Committee appealed to the Norwegian state in 2018 to halt the project until the impact on reindeer grazing could be thoroughly investigated. Despite this, the Norwegian government saw no reason to delay the project and construction began as scheduled.

Supreme Court Ruling and Aftermath

The case was ultimately brought to the Norwegian Supreme Court after several appeals and cases in the lower courts. In October 2021, after the wind farms were already set up and running, the Supreme Court ruled that the licenses for the 151 wind turbines in Storheia and Roan were invalid as the construction had “a significant adverse effect” on reindeer husbandry in breach of Article 27 of the ICCPR which protects the rights to cultural enjoyment.

The Court observed that while green energy was an important goal for the right to a “good and healthy environment”, there were alternative development opportunities for green energy which did not infringe on the indigenous rights of the Sami. Therefore, the rights of the Sami were not necessarily in conflict with the general right of Norwegians to healthy environment, and one does not need to be diminished in order for the other to be protected.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the two wind farms are still operating and Statkraft AS, the owner of Fosen Vind, is currently applying for new licences. Fosen Wind and the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy argue that the continued operation of the wind farms is legitimate as the court did not take a position on what should happen to the wind farm itself. Instead of dismantling the turbines, Fosen Vind and the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy state that they want to find sufficient “mitigating measures” and decide on an “updated licence” that is compatible with the rights of the Sami people. In stark contrast, the Sami herders argue that there are no possible mitigating measures that would protect the Sami’s rights.  The winter pastures that the wind farms are near are now unusable for reindeer grazing and thus the turbines must be dismantled for the Sami to continue practising their culture.

Climate ambition

• Scotland aims to produce 50% of its energy consumption (specified as heat, transport, and electricity consumption) using renewable sources by 2030.

• To that end, Scotland has taken several steps, including establishing the Energy Investment Fund, promoting onshore wind development, partnering with third parties to develop offshore wind projects, and making it more attractive to invest in local and small-scale renewable energy projects.

Renewable energy sources

• Scotland’s ambitious target is made feasible by the abundance of renewable resources, i.e., high wind speeds and a geology suited for carbon capture.

• The winds, the tides, and the area in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles could in theory generate 50% of the UK's energy needs.

• However, the Scottish Government’s claims on Scotland’s wind energy potential have been disputed by the UK Statistics Authority.

Green transition and Community ownership

The Scottish government has set ambitious goals for shared ownership of onshore wind and renewable energy projects supported by a sound legal framework, a financing scheme (CARES), and certain guiding principles. For instance, by 2020, the government aimed to have at least 50% of newly consented renewable energy projects with an element of community-ownership. In addition, by 2030, Scotland aims to produce 2 GW of community and locally owned energy. Most community or locally owned wind energy projects are located in Aberdeenshire and the Highlands, and are owned by farms and estates, local authorities, and local businesses.

On official announcements, the government states that the aim is to ensure that “Scottish communities benefit from local projects in a manner that is appropriate for the current and future context in which renewable energy projects are developed”. Offshore wind projects have brought little national or community benefit, however. Although nearby communities are compensated, this sum is minute compared to the profits that energy companies reap from such projects.

Land ownership structures

Around 80% of Scotland's land is privately owned with less than 3% of land owned by communities. The Western isles form an exception with around 70% of community-owned land being located there.

Campaigners have criticised the fact that in recent years, individuals and corporations (both domestic and foreign) have been buying large tracts of the Scottish Highlands to meet their own sustainability commitments.

Good practice examples: Scottish Development Trusts

Throughout Scotland, trusts have been set up in both rural and urban, and mainland and island communities to help the respective community flourish through “community-led activity, partnership working and enterprise”. The aim of these “Development Trusts” is “to create social, economic and environmental renewal in a defined geographical area, creating wealth within that area and keeping it there.” They are governed, in part, by the Development Trust Association Scotland (DTAS). Development trusts have been an important element in the ownership structures of community-owned wind farms. The cases below describe how these trusts can ensure that the revenues of large wind projects can be shared fairly with and benefit the entire community.

Profile cases

Allt Dearg Wind Farm and Sròndoire wind farm

Located in Argyll in the West Highlands, the Allt Dearg Wind Farm, owned by Allt Dearg Wind Farmers LLP (ADWF), is an onshore wind power project formed through a partnership with two estates partners, two equity partners, a renewable energy developer, and the Ardrishaig Community Development Trust. While other utility providers have failed to obtain licenses to build projects in the area, ADWF was able to gain approval for its plans due to the direct benefits it was bringing to the socio-economic status of the Ardrishaig community. Some of the key best practice takeaways include:

(a) The Adrishaig Trust had a substantial discount on the buy-in price into the wind farm project which allowed the Trust to have a greater share in the project;

(b) The projected productivity of the site was great (as a very windy area) so ADWF was able to secure additional debt financing without any grants from the government due to the projected profit and cash generation from the wind farm;

(c) The Trust is required to demonstrate that the share of the revenue which it will receive from its ownership of the wind farm will be used for the benefit of the people of Ardrishaig.

The benefits of Allt Dearg to the broader Argyll community include, amongst others, the development of the local landscape and environment for wildlife (such as the regeneration of native woodland around the area), financial support to local young people for their education, the generation of around £100,000 per annum for broader local development initiatives, jobs, new road access and the non-tangible benefits of visiting and exploring the wind farm for schools and community groups.

In 2013, ADWF helped set up two more trusts: Tarbert and Skipness Community Trust (TSCT) and Tighnabruaich District Development Trust (TDDT). Revenues from the Allt Dearg wind farm were put in these trusts to fund the economic development of Ardrishaig. Through these trusts, neighbouring communities were also able to participate in another wind farm called Sròndoire Wind Farm. Both TSCT and TDDT agreed to invest an equal amount to acquire a 6.25% stake in Sròndoire.

Beinn Ghrideag wind farm

Beinn Ghirdeag, the largest community-owned and commercial-scale wind farm in the UK. Located on the Isle of Lewis in the Western Isles, the onshore wind farm is owned by the Point and Sandwick Development Trust (PST), with the assistance of loans from Community Energy Scotland and commercial banks. Currently, the wind farm generates £900,000 net income annually for the benefit of the local community. After having paid its capital costs, PST expects the wind farm to generate up to £2 million annually.  The Trust funds the local hospice, the non-profit Western Isles Poverty Action, Forestry Commission Scotland and the Woodland Trust.

Offshore wind: Falck renewables and Energy4all

In 2022, a consortium formed by Falck Renewables, Ørsted, and BlueFloat has partnered with Energy4All for its expertise on community-owned renewable energy projects. This consortium has secured three sites on which they aim to establish the world’s first community-owned offshore wind project in Scotland. The consortium is currently consulting neighbouring communities on a potential shared ownership structure.

Climate ambition

• Sweden is one of the leading countries in the transition to green energy. In 2019, 56% of the energy used came from renewable sources.

• Sweden has a net-zero target of 2045, and aims to have 100% renewable electricity generation by 2040.

• As per the EU-wide NDC, Sweden is committed to reducing at least 40% of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990.

Renewable energy sources

• Currently, hydropower and bioenergy are the two largest renewable sources with wind power only accounting for a fraction of the total energy supply in Sweden.

• However, during the last decade, the number of wind turbines has increased significantly.

• The expansion of wind energy in Sweden is primarily planned to occur in the northern regions. Within a few years, it is estimated that the installed wind capacity in the north of Sweden will exceed the capacity in the rest of the country.

Indigenous Sami and Reindeer Husbandry

The northern part of Sweden is part of the larger traditional lands of the indigenous Sami which spans across the formal boundaries of several countries. Known as the Sápmi area, this territory traverses Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Russian Kola Peninsula. The Sami exist as one people with a common cultural identity, and their languages and cultures long pre-date the current countries in that region. The total Sami population is estimated between 70,000 to 100,000 with the majority of them residing in Norway.

Reindeer herding is central to the Sami culture and way of life. While only about 10 per cent of Sami are occupied as reindeer herders, the relationships with these animals constitute a vital part of Sami culture. There are about 260 000 reindeer in Sweden and the reindeer grazing area stretches over half of the total country surface.

Legal and institutional framework 

At the domestic level, the Swedish Constitution recognises the Sami as a people (as opposed to a minority). Sweden also has a law recognising the Sami’s right to use land and water for themselves and for their reindeer within defined geographic areas.

In terms of institutions, Sweden has established a popularly elected body that also operates as a government agency called the Swedish Sami Parliament. This body is responsible for monitoring issues concerning the Sami culture and other matters in Sweden, including education, community development, reindeer herding, promoting the Sami language etc. However, as noted by the former UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya, the Swedish government was explicit that the Sami Parliament was not to be a body for self-determination.

Another concern raised by James Anaya was the absence of officially demarcated reindeer grazing areas, even though the Swedish Supreme Court has recognised that Sami traditional land use can give rise to legal property rights. This has flow-on effects through other laws such as the Swedish Environmental Code which is the key legal instrument for granting energy permits. The Code states that the reindeer industry, which takes place in areas assigned by the law as being of national interest for reindeer herding, should be protected against mining or project ventures. In other areas where reindeer husbandry lacks this status of “national interest” as deemed by Swedish law, the protections are weaker. In areas deemed to be of national interest for both reindeer husbandry and wind power, the Code states that the activity which is most likely to promote sustainable management of the land should be given priority. This ambiguity of the environmental code, combined with the absence of legally demarcated reindeer grazing lands, means that authorities have significant discretion to grant permits even where they disrupt Sami livelihoods.

Sweden has on several occasions been criticised by human rights bodies and the UN for their insufficient protection of Sami rights, and for failing to guarantee the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). However, the Swedish government passed a Sami consultation law in January 2022, and has set up a Truth Commission with a mandate to investigate the abuses of the Sami people by the Swedish state. While acknowledged as a step in the right direction, the new law has been criticised for only requiring consultation with Sami people as opposed to giving them meaningful decision-making power and the right to say “no”.

At the international level, Sweden has not ratified the ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. However, several international instruments which assert the rights of indigenous people apply in Sweden, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Sweden has also ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. 

Challenges for Indigenous rights and renewables

Reindeer herding requires vast areas of land for grazing purposes and the Sami have used the Sápmi area for reindeer husbandry since time immemorial. With the number and scale of wind power projects increasing in the Sápmi area in the last decade, the rights of the Sami to their culture, identity, lands, resources and livelihoods are threatened. Wind energy promoters have argued that there is a possible co-existence between wind farms and reindeer herding. However, several recent studies have found that reindeer herding is adversely affected by the construction and operation of wind farms. Migration, grazing and calving can be disturbed and reindeer herders can face increased costs and workload.  Consequently, the expansion of wind power focused on the northern parts of Sweden has intensified the conflicts over land use. Swedish courts are experiencing greater resistance and a growing number of lawsuits against energy developers filed by Sami reindeer herders.

Profile Case: Markbygden

Markbygden wind farm, expected to be completed in 2024, is one of Europe’s largest. The case of Markbygden is interesting from an indigenous rights perspective as the project was constructed on Sami territory in the north of Sweden on reindeer grazing lands. Despite great resistance from the Sami who argued that the large-scale project would harm reindeer husbandry in the area, the government approved the project on the basis that wind power and the green transition were more pressing than the adverse impacts on reindeer herding.

Early Pushback

Svevind, a privately held Swedish company, applied for a license to construct and operate the Markbygden Wind Farm in 2008. The project comprises over 1000 turbines and was planned to be built in three phases, spanning an area of around 500km2 located west of Piteå. Svevind has been criticized for its lack of consideration for the Sami community of Ostra Kikkejaur who use the area for reindeer grazing. Svevind believed that there would be a relatively low degree of conflicting interests given that the area is more sparsely populated compared to other regions.

Of the total area, 450km2 covers land used by Sami for reindeer grazing. The project means that the Sami suffered a loss of almost 25 per cent of their winter grazing land. Several demonstrations were held and the Sami appealed the project given its significant adverse impact on reindeer husbandry in the area. The project was approved in 2010 despite strong opposition from the Sami parliament and local Sami communities.

Court Rulings

The land on which the project was planned had been named both an area of national interest for reindeer husbandry as well as wind energy. In the case of Markbygden, Swedish authorities ultimately used their discretion under the Environmental Code to declare that the national interest of combating climate change, through the expansion of wind energy, was to take precedence over the national interest of protecting reindeer husbandry. The Swedish environmental court supported this too.

Several scholars have criticized how the court weighs competing interests, arguing that reindeer husbandry cannot be treated as merely another industry. Reindeer husbandry, while providing Sami with important income, is a vital part of the Sami culture, self-determination and identity. Merely keeping the industry economically viable, through compensation or alternative means of herding, is not enough to ensure the cultural survival that the Sami have a right to under international law.

Climate ambition

• The current administration has established the goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions no later than 2050.

• It also announced a 2030 aim of reducing net GHG emissions by 50-52% from 2005 levels.

• The United States (US) has committed to deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and a target goal of permitting at least 25 gigawatts of onshore renewable energy by 2025.

• Renewable energy has seen rapid growth in recent years due to low costs and policy support.

• The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) notes that the US has the technical potential to increase its share of renewables in the US energy mix to 27% by 2030. By way of illustration, about 20.1% of the nation's utility-scale electricity production in 2021 came from renewable energy sources.

Renewable sources

• Wind power offers the greatest potential for renewables growth in the US and is currently the largest renewable energy generator, accounting for around 43% of all renewable energy in 2020. Texas has the highest installed wind power potential, followed by Iowa and Oklahoma.

• Wind energy is predicted to increase from 63 GW (in 2014) to 314 GW by 2030.

• Hydropower is the largest source of renewable power generation in the US, but IRENA predicts limited potential for large-scale developments.

• Solar power resources vary across regions in the US, but IRENA predicts that the total installed capacity of solar photovoltaics (PV) could reach 135 GW by 2030.

• Biomass and biogas technologies also have significant potential in the US, with a possible 84 GW by 2030. 

Indigenous People & Culture

There are around 5.2 million Native Americans (including American Indians and Alaska Natives) making up 2 percent of the U.S. population. Of this number, 78% reside in small towns or rural regions outside reservations, primarily in California, Arizona, and Oklahoma. There are presently 574 federally recognised Nations and the largest are the Navajo Nation and Cherokee Nation.

Since the United States was founded, Native Americans have faced atrocities and dispossession as part of settler colonialism. It forcibly drove them away from their native homelands, and they encountered unfair agreements and government actions that later centred on forced assimilation. Although Native Nations have long been acknowledged as sovereign, they continue to face barriers in obtaining political and legal autonomy to define and enforce institutions such as property law in Indian country.

Legal framework and institutions

At the domestic level, The United States recognises the inherent sovereignty of tribal communities and the United States Code has a section which governs the relationship between the United States and all the federally recognised  Nations. The Indian Reorganisation Act (IRA) created the formal infrastructure to recognise Native Nations and the parameters within which Native Nations could write their own constitutions. In this sense, the US is the only country in the world which provides “legibility and visibility” to Native Nations within its domestic law.

However, the United States Congress and the Supreme Court have the power to limit (or even divest) tribal sovereignty. The Court has historically sanctioned the dispossession of Indian lands, the exploitation of Indian resources by outsiders and the curtailment of tribal government.  With respect to property rights, tribal lands or reservations are held “in trust” by the United States government for the use of specific Nations (which includes approximately 56.2 million acres of land). This means that the majority of Native Americans cannot sell the natural resources that the land holds and have limited control over leasing out or encumbering tribal territory. Native Nations cannot secure environmental and cultural preservation, engage in development and management choices, or negotiate favourable conditions.

At the international level, The United States has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), recognising the rights of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), land, and resources. However, UNDRIP is not binding law in the United States and the right to FPIC is not properly implemented in practice. Similarly, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the Organisation of American States (OAS) in 2016. Similar to UNDRIP, it is a human rights document that upholds the right to self-determination, self-government, cultural expression, land areas, territories, and natural resources. 

Challenges and opportunities for indigenous ownership of renewable energy

Indian tribes rely on the development of the reservation’s natural resources as one of the primary means of economic development. Despite this importance and the extensive mineral resource base on tribal lands, tribal control over the development and use of such resources has historically been limited. While decision-making power for tribes has increased in recent decades, tribal sovereignty (both practical and political) remains fragile.

At the policy level, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Indian Energy supports indigenous energy and economic infrastructure through policies and programs by offering funding through grants, technical support, training, and capacity building. DOE has contributed over $114 million since 2010 to approximately 200 indigenous energy projects spread across the United States. The Obama administration made many pledges to indigenous clean energy through financial and technical support programs and capacity-building training for Native Alaskan and American Indian communities.

At the legal level, the Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act (ITEDSA) of 2008 offers Native Nations the power to make the ultimate decision about specific development activities, including the development of renewable energy sources such as wind. While this is a positive development, ITEDSA does not address tribal concerns such as enhancing their access to financial, technical and scientific resources to ensure that tribes approach negotiations with businesses on an equal footing. Furthermore, Native Nations are still required to engage in a public consultation process with government officials, which dilutes and contradicts the sovereignty of the Nations. From a practical perspective, energy development in the native territory has also been hampered by government departments’ poor administration, long review periods and other bureaucratic hurdles. Such issues lengthen the development process and result in missed opportunities and income.  Tribes also do not have access to the financial resources and incentives currently accessible to private companies and local governments.

Profile Cases

The Oceti Sakowin Power Project in South Dakota

To produce renewable energy and become self-sufficient, six Sioux tribes in South Dakota—the Cheyenne River, Flandreau Santee, Oglala, Rosebud, Standing Rock, and Yankton Sioux—have established their wholly-owned multi-tribal power authority, known as Oceti akowi (OSPA). OSPA created the largest native wind projects in the United States in a cooperative venture with a wind developer, Apex Clean Energy.

OSPA has a majority stake in the company and participates actively in decisions to ensure a longer-term view and meaningful aligned with native teachings. While Apex assisted with necessary federal criteria and standards for approving the wind farms and power connections, OSPA provided its strong expertise and understanding in acquiring land, cultural and ecological concerns, and local legislation.

The wind farms' construction, operation, and funding were done jointly by OSPA and Apex. To retain tribal ownership, financing was secured through the issuance of utility revenue bonds, aimed at institutional investors. The Bush Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, and the Northwest Area Foundation are some of the partners.

In addition to creating jobs, sustainable development, and a prosperous future for the Native Nations, the project aims to promote Tribal self-sufficiency. The Sioux will equally split the financial gains from selling power to the Southwest Power Pool. It is estimated that the project could bring in $20 million in tax and fee revenue for the tribes which OSA and its member Tribes will reinvest in other communities for the planning, financing, ownership and management of community-scale renewable energy projects.

“Our dream is that this [wind project] will bring income to our people where we can be more self-sufficient.” - ​​Faith Spotted Eagle, a member of OSPA’s Council of Elders. (https://www.apexcleanenergy.com/insight/apex-clean-energy-recognized-best-largest-pipeline-wind-projects-u-s-2/)

“We want to use our revenue to invest back into the wind farms, so we can retain more ownership and more control of our projects,” Lyle Jack, Chairman of the Oceti Sakowin Power Project. (https://www.lakotatimes.com/articles/oceti-sakowin-wind-power-project/)

Fire Island Wind Project in Alaska

The Fire Island Wind Project in Anchorage is owned and run by Fire Island Wind LLC, a subsidiary of Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI). With assets amounting to almost a billion dollars and approximately nine thousand stockholders representing the Alaska Native cultures, CIRI is one of the Alaska Native corporations formed by Congress.

CIRI now owns 75% of the property on Fire Island. The project encountered several difficulties, took seven years to complete, and required 120 permits to be built. However, the project was completed eight months after the Regulatory Commission of Alaska authorised the 25-year power purchase deal with Chugach Electric Association, the biggest electric cooperative in Alaska. In 2012, the project started supplying up to seven thousand houses across Anchorage with clean energy.

The Chaninik Wind Group in Alaska

In 2005, the four Native tribes of Kongiganak, Kwigilliingok, Tuntutuliak, and Kipnuk came together to create the Chaninik Wind Group. The organisation wanted to build renewable energy and smart infrastructure, including wind energy, to combat growing fuel prices and provide Native communities with economic independence and income through employment and revenues. The organisation created the necessary technical competence to carry out the projects independently with the aid of regional utility managers and energy specialists. Federal funding was provided to the organisation to set up smart grid equipment and track the village's power consumption. The completed projects have lowered the cost of residential home heating and decreased their reliance on fossil fuels.

Other interesting cases

• Cherokee Nation and PNE in Oklahoma
• Kodiak Island Wind Project in Alaska

These spotlights have been prepared by students on the 2022 CEMS Academic Placement programme.